Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) wrote:
Hello, guys,

I have fixed distutils (and setuptools remains working) with the attached patch. Now, RPMs will be built according to the Fedora Package Naming Guidelines:

which I understand to be the most useful reference in terms of naming pre-release packages. This should work correctly in at least:

- Fedora

I urge you patch your python 2.4s and 2.5s and 2.6s and push this update to distributions. I have done that myself at my own repository.

Now we can enjoy one more reason to build RPMs (and eggs! ... according to my workbench at -- feel free to pick its brains) DIRECTLY from the cheese shop, especially if you're using pip.

Oh, I also have pip at my repo (cd ../RPMS/noarch in my workbench).

See attached patch. I will log bugs where it corresponds too.

Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) <> -
GPG key ID 0xC8D28B92 at

Now playing, courtesy of Amarok: Aqua - Cartoon heroes
Windows 95 is not a virus. Viruses actually do something.

Hi Manuel,
  You worked on my problem!  Great.
  So today what we have been doing to deal with the pre-release and lexical ordering problem involving pre-releases is this:
    We impose a restriction on how the pre-release is identified.  So for example if you intend to end up with a final version-release of 5.0.0-1 and you want to first put out some betas or release candidates then we have to name them as, 5.0.0-0_beta1, or 5.0.0-0_rc1 and this is so that the lexical ordering for RPM will be correct.  In other words you must put the pre-release designation into the 'release' part of VERSION-RELEASE.  What we had seen developers doing previously was to name these as 5.0.0_beta1 or 5.0.0_rc1 (making the pre-release designation part of the 'version' string)  which then did not work for the lexical ordering of the final release of 5.0.0-1 because 5.0.0 (version) was not lexically superior to 5.0.0_rc1.  So we were able to solve this problem without any code changes to distutils.  But this also presented a challenge for the other distribution targets such as 'sdist' because they were totally unaware of this 'version-release' combination and only knew about 'version'.  So as a workaround we were doing this:
# define both version AND release
# combine them for all targets except 'bdist_rpm'
if sys.argv[1] != 'bdist_rpm':
    version = version+'-'+release
So this wasn't perfect but it actually worked quite well and we could get 'sdist' to work properly in conjunction with 'bdist_rpm'. 
So now with your patch all the targets should be able to set and use both 'version' and 'release' and we don't need our workaround and that will be great.