[Distutils] SOLVED: bdist_rpm and pre-release python packages / eggs (was: pre-release versioning problems with sdist, bdist_rpm, bdist_debian)

[Tarek Ziadé]

Hi,

Great work !

FYI it's on my pile in the bug tracker in Python. I'll try to work on
these before Pycon

Also, note that I am planning to release Distutils as a standalone
package before Pycon;
since the current trunk targets Python 2.3 to 3.1

Regards
Tarek

On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Gerry Reno <greno at verizon.net> wrote:
> 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:
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Non-Numeric_Version_in_Release
>
> which I understand to be the most useful reference in terms of naming
> pre-release packages. This should work correctly in at least:
>
> - Fedora
> - RHEL
> - SUSE
>
> 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 http://yum.rudd-o.com/SCRIPTS/ -- 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) <rudd-o at rudd-o.com>
> Rudd-O.com - http://rudd-o.com/
> GPG key ID 0xC8D28B92 at http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/
>
> 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:
> # WORKAROUND
> # define both version AND release
> version='5.0.0'
> release='1'
> # 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.
>
> Regards,
> Gerry
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
Tarek Ziadé | Association AfPy | www.afpy.org
Blog FR | http://programmation-python.org
Blog EN | http://tarekziade.wordpress.com/