From alan at balclutha.org Sat Oct 1 13:17:17 2005 From: alan at balclutha.org (Alan Milligan) Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 13:17:17 +0000 Subject: [Fedora-packaging] Python byte-compilation Message-ID: <433E8C5D.8040703@balclutha.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, I wonder if anyone has a solution to incorrect path-names in byte-compiled python packages. In the normal dist-utils install step within the context of an rpmbuild, all paths get prepended /var/tmp/buildroot-.../usr/lib/python2.x/site-packages. This causes incorrect stack trace information to be shown. I'd taken to doing byte-compilation in the %post step to fix this, but I've discovered a much worse effect from this in that all the .pyc and pyo files thus fall outside RPM control, and when removing the package, stay in place, effectively negating the removal (although the translation units are definitely gone...) Any thoughts? Alan -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDPoxdCfroLk4EZpkRAr+FAKCyb/b+q8MRn5Nf5X+x0HUCi6sHBgCcDduj dhvYknEVuoW7ziQBTEieuKw= =Dlu+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From symbiont at berlios.de Sat Oct 1 14:59:53 2005 From: symbiont at berlios.de (Jeff Pitman) Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 22:59:53 +0800 Subject: [Fedora-packaging] Python byte-compilation In-Reply-To: <433E8C5D.8040703@balclutha.org> References: <433E8C5D.8040703@balclutha.org> Message-ID: <200510012259.54257.symbiont@berlios.de> On Saturday 01 October 2005 21:17, Alan Milligan wrote: > Any thoughts? Generate at buildtime and use %ghost in %files (or if you're a pedantic at pushing the packages out faster, then use "touch" to generate dummy placeholders). Then generate in %post. Actually, Debian Python Policy states to byte compile in post. Probably for the reason you stated. How many packages have you adopted this policy? And, have you noticed a significant speed impact during install of the packages? The reason it hasn't been implemented here, is probably based on two reasons: 1. Disk space complaints. (FE likes to %ghost *.pyo) 2. Potential install slowness. (They don't want a repeat of the kernel hardlink stuff.) -- -jeff From toshio at tiki-lounge.com Sat Oct 1 15:25:34 2005 From: toshio at tiki-lounge.com (Toshio Kuratomi) Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 08:25:34 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-packaging] Python byte-compilation In-Reply-To: <433E8C5D.8040703@balclutha.org> References: <433E8C5D.8040703@balclutha.org> Message-ID: <1128180334.3751.33.camel@localhost> On Sat, 2005-10-01 at 13:17 +0000, Alan Milligan wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi, > > I wonder if anyone has a solution to incorrect path-names in > byte-compiled python packages. > > In the normal dist-utils install step within the context of an rpmbuild, > all paths get prepended > /var/tmp/buildroot-.../usr/lib/python2.x/site-packages. This causes > incorrect stack trace information to be shown. > Two solutions: 1) In FC4, there's an rpm script: /usr/lib/rpm/brp-python-bytecompile which performs byte compilation correctly. I believe it will re-compile code that distutils already installed as well. Let this do its job and everything should be fine. 2) To create a spec that works for previous versions of FC you have to recompile the code yourself. Here's a snippet:: %{!?python_sitelib: %define python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c "from distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print get_python_lib()")} [...] %install file=roman.py extradest=%{python_sitelib} fullextradest=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/$extradest install -m 0644 extras/$file $fullextradest %{__python} -c "import py_compile; py_compile.compile(\ '$fullextradest/$file', \ '$fullextradest/$file' + 'c', \ '$extradest/$file')" %{__python} -O -c "import py_compile; py_compile.compile(\ '$fullextradest/$file', \ '$fullextradest/$file' + 'o', \ '$extradest/$file')" The variables at top will need some tweaking. In most situations you'll want a for loop instead of simply assigning one value to $file. And you may have to change $extradest if you aren't installing a python module to the sitelib. > I'd taken to doing byte-compilation in the %post step to fix this, but > I've discovered a much worse effect from this in that all the .pyc and > pyo files thus fall outside RPM control, and when removing the package, > stay in place, effectively negating the removal (although the > translation units are definitely gone...) Don't do this! As you've discovered, it's broken :-) -Toshio -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Sun Oct 9 10:10:45 2005 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 12:10:45 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-packaging] Some packaging guidelines suggestions Message-ID: <1128852645.23735.16.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Hi, As Fedora Extras is speeding up we're starting to see people unearthing their pet package from RHL 6.x/7.x time and submitting it to extras. It may be a good idea to add those ?s to the packaging guidelines : 1. Red Hat packaging is not always right FE has stronger packaging requirements than RHL/RHEL/FC, so blindly copying a RHL/RHEL/FC spec file may not be sufficient (especially if you rebase older releases). 2. Follow the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard Always follow the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard rules when choosing file locations. The FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) is one standard everyone seems to agree on. -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e URL: From ivazquez at ivazquez.net Sun Oct 9 13:06:20 2005 From: ivazquez at ivazquez.net (Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams) Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 09:06:20 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-packaging] Some packaging guidelines suggestions In-Reply-To: <1128852645.23735.16.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> References: <1128852645.23735.16.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <1128863180.1308.3.camel@ignacio.lan> On Sun, 2005-10-09 at 12:10 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > 2. Follow the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard > > Always follow the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard rules when choosing file > locations. The FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) is one standard > everyone seems to agree on. Unfortunately SELinux interferes with this sometimes (e.g., putting static web apps in /usr/share with the data for it stored under /srv). -- Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams http://fedora.ivazquez.net/ gpg --keyserver hkp://subkeys.pgp.net --recv-key 38028b72 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Sun Oct 9 18:01:05 2005 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 20:01:05 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-packaging] Some packaging guidelines suggestions In-Reply-To: <1128863180.1308.3.camel@ignacio.lan> References: <1128852645.23735.16.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <1128863180.1308.3.camel@ignacio.lan> Message-ID: <1128880866.2804.9.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Le dimanche 09 octobre 2005 ? 09:06 -0400, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams a ?crit : > On Sun, 2005-10-09 at 12:10 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > 2. Follow the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard > > > > Always follow the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard rules when choosing file > > locations. The FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) is one standard > > everyone seems to agree on. > > Unfortunately SELinux interferes with this sometimes (e.g., putting > static web apps in /usr/share with the data for it stored under /srv). Well, this is kind of a special case. Someone needs to put hard rules in the FHS concerning webapps, and tools will follow. Selinux deserves a big fat ? in the guidelines but I'm not the one to write it. Maybe this formulation is better ? 2. Follow the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard Always follow the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) rules when choosing file locations. Exceptions must be approved on the fedora extras mailing list. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e URL: From ville.skytta at iki.fi Sat Oct 15 09:42:21 2005 From: ville.skytta at iki.fi (Ville =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Skytt=E4?=) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 12:42:21 +0300 Subject: [Fedora-packaging] perl-* package naming clarification Message-ID: <1129369341.816.47.camel@localhost.localdomain> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageNamingGuidelines#head-ced15ebed5e5ed9465c5245dbe51b8ff9b0b98d9 I'd like to clarify the perl-* section of the package naming guidelines a bit. Currently, it talks about stuff like "the CPAN name of the perl module" and colons and dashes. What's "the perl module"? While this question can often be answered by deciding the "main" module in a CPAN module distribution, it's unnecessary and doesn't really match the practices already applied for a long time (for example perl-libwww-perl). Since the unit of CPAN packaging is really a CPAN module _distribution_, I think that section of the should be simplified to say that the packages should almost always be named perl-$CPANDIST. The only exception would be the rare cases where a CPAN module distribution needs to be chopped into smaller subpackages; in those cases the split ones should be called perl-$CPANDIST-$somethingdescriptive. Thoughts? From lists at andreas-jung.com Tue Oct 25 06:38:19 2005 From: lists at andreas-jung.com (Andreas Jung) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 08:38:19 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-packaging] Maintainer of the Zope packages? Message-ID: <105B3BBC1199533AA1A7D9AA@suxmac> Hi, how can I figure out who is in charge for building and maintaining the Zope RPMs? Andreas -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 186 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Christian.Iseli at licr.org Tue Oct 25 08:57:51 2005 From: Christian.Iseli at licr.org (Christian.Iseli at licr.org) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 10:57:51 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-packaging] Maintainer of the Zope packages? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 25 Oct 2005 08:38:19 +0200." <105B3BBC1199533AA1A7D9AA@suxmac> Message-ID: <200510250857.j9P8vpjZ003572@ludwig-alpha.unil.ch> lists at andreas-jung.com said: > how can I figure out who is in charge for building and maintaining the Zope > RPMs? $ grep zope owners.list Fedora Extras|zope|Application server in Python|gauret at free.fr|extras-qa at fedoraproject.org| HTH, Christian From bugs.michael at gmx.net Tue Oct 25 12:59:12 2005 From: bugs.michael at gmx.net (Michael Schwendt) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:59:12 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-packaging] Maintainer of the Zope packages? In-Reply-To: <105B3BBC1199533AA1A7D9AA@suxmac> References: <105B3BBC1199533AA1A7D9AA@suxmac> Message-ID: <20051025145912.1e220b66.bugs.michael@gmx.net> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 08:38:19 +0200, Andreas Jung wrote: > Hi, > > how can I figure out who is in charge for building and maintaining the Zope > RPMs? > > Andreas In Bugzilla. See here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/describecomponents.cgi?product=Fedora%20Extras