[Fedora-packaging] Python Virtual Provides

[Jeremy Katz]

On Mon, 2008-06-16 at 19:20 -0400, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> Jeremy Katz wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-06-16 at 16:39 -0400, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> >> Jeremy Katz wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 2008-06-16 at 14:30 -0400, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> >>>> I've added Python Virtual Provides to the list of draft guidelines.
> >>>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Python
> >>> [snip]
> >>>> The motivation for this is that David Malcolm (dmalcolm) wrote a proof 
> >>>> of concept script to show how easy it would be to extract egg dependency 
> >>>> information as part of the rpm build process.
> >>> To help maintain the sanity of everyone building packages, can't we just
> >>> auto-generate these?  I know there's the old patch floating around
> >>> somewhere for python deps that we should be using but haven't yet
> >>> instituted.  And extending that to work with eggs also seems to make
> >>> sense.  And then we avoid everyone having to add stuff to their spec
> >>> files
> >>>
> >> Err, that's why I said the motivation for this was that Dave Malcolm 
> >> wrote a script to do that for eggs :-)
> > 
> > If it's being done automatically, it's not really packaging policy --
> > it's just part of things working :)
> > 
> The packaging policy portion is:
> 
> * Are Virtual Provides the way to go (I say yes and so far no one's shot 
> me down :-)

I don't really know how else you'd do it...

> * What should the virtual provides be named?

Bikeshed :-)   But the proposal matches what we do for everything else

> * Should we do the part where we can only manage to pull Provides out 
> automatically but not Requires?

Obviously it'd be nice if we could get Requires done automatically too,
but it doesn't hurt to give the provides until then.

> * Should we try harder to make subpackages listed?

How so?  I might be missing something here but I don't see anything that
subpackages are especially relevant for?  You mean like if a module is
split across subpackages?  

Jeremy