[Fedora-packaging] Python eggs

seth vidal skvidal at linux.duke.edu
Thu Jan 26 22:45:52 UTC 2006

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,


More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list