[Fedora-packaging] Python eggs

[seth vidal]

On Thu, 2006-01-26 at 00:10 -0500, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 23:54 -0500, Elliot Lee wrote:
> > On Wed, 25 Jan 2006, Michael Weiner wrote:
> > 
> > > > Unfortunately, the Python community is becoming intoxicated with eggs!
> > > >
> > > > Is there a strategy (preferably backed by rpm macros) to deal with this
> > > > - ie sanely packaging all egg'd installed prerequisites??
> > 
> > Having just become familiar with this stuff myself yesterday, it seems
> > like it should be fairly simple to package up the .egg's themselves. I
> > think the main challenge is to come up with a way of automatically turning
> > egg dependencies (both provides & requires) into rpm dependencies... This
> > should be doable with minimal rpm modifications. .egg's already have all
> > the information necessary to do this.
> 
> Certainly it is feasible to write a script that could look at setup.py
> after the fact and extract the requirements from there, or even to
> inject a bit of code into setuptools itself. Provides might require a
> little more work unless we switch to using the python() namespace.
> 
> > The biggest challenge I ran into was getting setuptools to recognize the
> > existence of some non-eggd dependencies. For example, python-elementtree
> > was installed but setuptools keeps insisting that it couldn't find
> > cElementTree >= 0.2. This is more of a pythonland issue than an rpmland
> > issue, but we'll definitely have to address it in order to make .eggs work
> > nicely.
> 
> Unfortunately [c]ElementTree et al will be a persistent issue until
> either setuptools becomes part of Core, or the maintainers of the Python
> packages in Core are convinced to include additional information within
> the package (which may or may not be egg information). If you look at
> how I did it in TurboGears you see that I commented out the packages in
> setup.py that don't provide egg/package information, but this certainly
> isn't something we want to do long-term.
> 

Why can't we do what debian and conary is doing already for eggs.

there's some option you can pass in for packaging this sort of thing,
iirc.

-sv