[Fedora-packaging] Re: what policy for python egg files
a.badger at gmail.com
Mon Dec 18 18:18:20 UTC 2006
On Mon, 2006-12-18 at 17:47 +0000, David Lutterkort wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-12-16 at 14:09 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 07:43:04PM -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> > > >>>>> "TK" == Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger at gmail.com> writes:
> > >
> > > TK> I think tibbs had the opposite viewpoint but I don't remember if
> > > TK> we got to a point where he decided it didn't matter or we came to
> > > TK> an agreement or just let it drop.
> > >
> > > I guess the point is that I can't figure out what additional value it
> > > adds, and in general it's bad to package up something that's
> > > completely needless.
> > egg is a packaging method that is orthogonal to what we use. Leaving
> > the eggs around may get users to start using egg-installation and get
> > files on the system unregistered by rpm.
> > Or not? If the above is correct eggs should even be banned just as
> > other non-native package formats are banned (debs or tarballs for
> > example).
> The crucial issue are the dependencies that right now have to stay
> within each packaging format; if rpm's can't contain any egg (or gem or
> whatnot) info, users will end up installing the same package twice, just
> to fulfill dependencies completely within each packaging system.
> It would be much more userfriendly if we laid the groundwork for other
> packaging systems to depend on rpm-installed bits; that mostly means to
> _allow_ inclusion of non-rpm packaging metadata in rpms.
Some end users are going to install via eggs/gems/cpan anyways. It's
better if we allow them to use as many FE packages as possible when they
do this, rather than forcing them to install duplicates of packages they
already have installed via rpm.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the Fedora-packaging