If no one is using it, I'd like to delete it. I also don't think we should be in business of distributing distribution specific files. -- Regards, Benjamin
Am 12.06.2011 22:37, schrieb Benjamin Peterson:
I also don't think we should be in business of distributing distribution specific files.
I disagree. We certainly include PCbuild/*.vcproj, and Tools/msi, which are also "distribution-specific". Likewise, we have plenty of OSX-specific files (including special-casing for specific releases thereof). So having an RPM spec file in the source doesn't sound bad to me. Of course, if it's unmaintained (in the sense that it doesn't actually work), I could agree to have it deleted. Make sure Sean Reifschneider doesn't object. People are apparently using it - at least, they report bugs against it: http://bugs.python.org/issue5776 http://bugs.python.org/issue5063 Regards, Martin
2011/6/12 "Martin v. Löwis"
Am 12.06.2011 22:37, schrieb Benjamin Peterson:
I also don't think we should be in business of distributing distribution specific files.
I disagree. We certainly include PCbuild/*.vcproj, and Tools/msi, which are also "distribution-specific". Likewise, we have plenty of OSX-specific files (including special-casing for specific releases thereof).
I should qualify: We shouldn't distribute distribution-specific files for which we don't provide binaries. -- Regards, Benjamin
Benjamin Peterson writes:
I should qualify: We shouldn't distribute distribution-specific files for which we don't provide binaries.
Probably it belongs in a "contrib" area of the tree, but one of the things I find really annoying about distros is the way they refuse to use my perfectly good locally built Python (XEmacs, Mailman, Django, Zope, ...). Having the magic incantation to persuade them that the locally built software satisfies dependencies in the source itself is very convenient. In fact, even if you *do* provide binaries it may be useful to have both the "provided" installer configuration (which may require things like DBMSes, perhaps several of them) and a bare-bones config for DIYers to use. (Violates TOOWTDI, I know, but PBP sometimes.)
I disagree. We certainly include PCbuild/*.vcproj, and Tools/msi, which are also "distribution-specific". Likewise, we have plenty of OSX-specific files (including special-casing for specific releases thereof).
I should qualify: We shouldn't distribute distribution-specific files for which we don't provide binaries.
Hmm. We have VS6, VS7, and VS8 project files, OS/2 makefiles, and configure.in has specifics for Solaris, even though we don't provide binaries for any of these. I don't think that's a useful principle to follow. Regards, Martin
On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 21:03:18 +0200
"Martin v. Löwis"
I disagree. We certainly include PCbuild/*.vcproj, and Tools/msi, which are also "distribution-specific". Likewise, we have plenty of OSX-specific files (including special-casing for specific releases thereof).
I should qualify: We shouldn't distribute distribution-specific files for which we don't provide binaries.
Hmm. We have VS6, VS7, and VS8 project files, OS/2 makefiles, and configure.in has specifics for Solaris, even though we don't provide binaries for any of these. I don't think that's a useful principle to follow.
Well, if we want to nitpick, all these files are for compilation, no for distribution ;) Regards Antoine.
On Sun, 2011-06-12 at 15:37 -0500, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
If no one is using it, I'd like to delete it. I also don't think we should be in business of distributing distribution specific files.
FWIW, Fedora and RHEL don't use this particular .spec file; we roll our own. I can't speak for all of the other RPM-using distributions, of course.
Am 13.06.2011 18:21, schrieb David Malcolm:
On Sun, 2011-06-12 at 15:37 -0500, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
If no one is using it, I'd like to delete it. I also don't think we should be in business of distributing distribution specific files.
FWIW, Fedora and RHEL don't use this particular .spec file; we roll our own.
I can't speak for all of the other RPM-using distributions, of course.
I doubt any of the distributions uses it, but that's not it's purpose, either. Instead, it is meant for people who want to roll their own RPM. Regards, Martin
participants (5)
-
"Martin v. Löwis" -
Antoine Pitrou -
Benjamin Peterson -
David Malcolm -
Stephen J. Turnbull