Add RPM-friendly Record Option
Hi: I'm new here. I submitted a patch for your kind review that spews out an RPM-consumable list including %dir and %lang attributes. The concept could be expanded further. The patch link is here: http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1035576&group_id=5470&atid=305470 I know install.py is probably supposed to be RPM-agnostic, but I saw this as the easiest solution. The --record option is still in-tact with a minor aesthetic improvement of using a list comprehension. Critic away! take care, -- -jeff
On Tue, Sep 28, 2004 at 12:44:34AM +0800, Jeff Pitman wrote:
I'm new here. I submitted a patch for your kind review that spews out an RPM-consumable list including %dir and %lang attributes. The concept could be expanded further.
Any comments on this patch? symbiont has been doing a lot of work with
RPMs, and has run into some issues where he needs some more features than
the normal record file provides. Any objections to my accepting this
patch?
Sean
--
Well son, a funny thing about regret is that it's better to regret something
you HAVE done than regret something you haven't done.
Sean Reifschneider, Member of Technical Staff
At 11:25 AM 9/29/04 -0600, Sean Reifschneider wrote:
On Tue, Sep 28, 2004 at 12:44:34AM +0800, Jeff Pitman wrote:
I'm new here. I submitted a patch for your kind review that spews out an RPM-consumable list including %dir and %lang attributes. The concept could be expanded further.
Any comments on this patch? symbiont has been doing a lot of work with RPMs, and has run into some issues where he needs some more features than the normal record file provides. Any objections to my accepting this patch?
Isn't distutils supposed to be compatible with older versions of Python, e.g. 1.5.2? The list comprehension won't work, and it removes a minor optimization ('if self.root:'). I don't see an issue with adding the feature, or in moving the write-record facility to a separate method, but the changes to existing feature(s) should be reversed, IMO.
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
Isn't distutils supposed to be compatible with older versions of Python, e.g. 1.5.2? The list comprehension won't work, and it removes a minor optimization ('if self.root:').
1.5.2 compatibility is so last release. I think it's targetted at 2.1
now (although PEP 291 needs an update).
Anthony
--
Anthony Baxter
On Thursday 30 September 2004 01:45, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
At 11:25 AM 9/29/04 -0600, Sean Reifschneider wrote:
On Tue, Sep 28, 2004 at 12:44:34AM +0800, Jeff Pitman wrote:
I'm new here. I submitted a patch for your kind review that spews out an RPM-consumable list including %dir and %lang attributes. The concept could be expanded further.
Any comments on this patch?
Isn't distutils supposed to be compatible with older versions of Python, e.g. 1.5.2?
I used the list comprehension for two reasons: 1) already used in build_py.py 2) matches what i did in write_record_rpm() (code's cleaner)
The list comprehension won't work, and it removes a minor optimization ('if self.root:').
I've updated the patch on sf.net to include this opt. Thanks for taking a look! take care, -- -jeff
On Thursday 30 September 2004 01:25, Sean Reifschneider wrote:
Any comments on this patch? symbiont has been doing a lot of work with RPMs, and has run into some issues where he needs some more features than the normal record file provides. Any objections to my accepting this patch?
I'm at v0.4 with the patch on sf.net because extra-path (Numeric) introduces some complexity, so I just hardcoded excluding 'site-packages' from the list. This won't be able to cover the case where the base lib directory changes to something say like 'homers-packages', but I think we're ok on that. But, I hit another snag whilst packaging IPython. They really pulled a doozy on me by introducing an additional "install_data_ext" which uses a different data format then the standard self.distribution.data_files. A local run of setup.py works because they've installed install_data_ext as the callback (or whatever we call it now-a-days) for install_data which handles the new data form. However, the write_record_rpm sneaks in to check what the directories are for this list. I'm wondering if there is any hope to cover for this situation. Any ideas? (Since IPython installs docs in a non-standard loc, I will bypass this, but I'm still wondering for the sake of long term usage.) take care, -- -jeff
participants (4)
-
Anthony Baxter -
Jeff Pitman -
Phillip J. Eby -
Sean Reifschneider