[Fedora-packaging] Re: what policy for python egg files

[Axel Thimm]

On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 05:47:48PM +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.

Don't you have the same issue if you install the egg with -Z? If not,
then the (egg-)package dependencies are obvioulsy spooled somewhere on
disk for easy_install and friends to find.

> 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.

If you like so, having "egg-provides" is fine, of course. Just like we
have foo.pc, but don't keep the full tarball around.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20061218/b0285ffd/attachment.sig>