[Bug 476600] Review Request: python-ZODB3 - Zope Object Database: Object Database and Persistence

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476600





--- Comment #5 from Mads Kiilerich <mads at kiilerich.com>  2009-10-29 13:52:54 EDT ---
Any comments to rpmlint warnings like the following?

python-BTrees.i586: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/BTrees/_IOBTree.c
python-BTrees.i586: E: non-standard-executable-perm
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/BTrees/_OIBTree.so 0775
python-persistent.i586: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/persistent/cPersistence.h
python-ZODB3.i586: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/include/python2.6/ZODB3/cPersistence.h

Have you considered putting sub-modules somewhere else than in the global
namespace instead of creating sub-packages? If it was an executable it could be
put in /usr/share (like for example rpmlint does), but in this case I guess it
could be below /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ZODB? What is upstreams
opinion? (My past experience with Zope is that they have their own strong
sub-community and don't try that hard to fit into system packaging, but instead
recommends building a python from source and not sharing it with anything
else.)

Shouldn't some of the subpackages require a specific version of the others?
There must be a reason the modules are distributed in one tar file?

Upstream project on pypi is ZODB3, and ZODB3 is also used in the tar name. But
it provides the ZODB module, and it seems like upstream consistently refers to
it as ZODB (or ZODB 3.9). Shouldn't the package be called python-ZODB instead?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.