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

Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) rudd-o at rudd-o.com
Fri Mar 13 03:29:19 CET 2009

> That is the ONLY policy there is for Mandriva.  So, if you like, then
> you can say the policy is whatever 'version' and 'release' naming that
> will work in an RPM spec file.  And that's way more flexible than
> Fedora's policy.

If the policy is "whatever works", then my patches comply with the Mandriva 
policy (in other words, they cause bdist_rpm to generate specfiles pursuant to 
the policy) and there is no need to discuss this any further.
> And Mandriva is just one example.  You have other distros that do not
> use Fedora naming policy and you have all sorts of derivatives of these
> distros, none of which are using Fedora packaging policy.

Show them to me and I will rewrite my patches to accomodate them.

> Again, put the patch logic in an extension called from a commandline
> option and leave the core alone.

My patches do not touch core distutils.  Stop lying about my work.

> Yes, there is.  Mandriva naming is whatever will work in a spec file.
> Much less restrictive than Fedora.


The core of the issue is simple:

* As of today, bdist_rpm generates invalid spec files when supplied with a 
pre-release python package (egg or standard distutils one).   What I mean is 
that it generates RPMs that would UPGRADE final releases.  Which is broken 
* My patch fixes this bug in bdist_rpm, and the fix works in mandriva, fedora, 
centos, and other RPM distributions, due to the fact that the RPM version 
algorithm is the same in librpm.so everywhere.

Now, onto this discussion itself -- let's go meta:

I have had enough of your lies and misrepresentations.  Now, you had your 
chance to make a case as to why my patches break anything in Mandriva, and I 
have conclusively shown they do not break anything there.  You have had plenty 
of chances to make your case, present examples, show code, improve the 
patches, one-up my work in MANY WAYS.

Alas, you haven't done any of that -- all you did was complain about "policy" 
-- and, frankly, I have worked very hard to make this work and I do not 
appreciate you chiming in with pointless bitching that has no basis in 
engineering reasons.

So further mails from you will be directed to /dev/null.

	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: DJ Jürgen presenting Alice Deejay - Better 
off alone (club vocal mix)
One meets his destiny often on the road he takes to avoid it.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/attachments/20090312/afd5fc64/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/attachments/20090312/afd5fc64/attachment-0001.pgp>

More information about the Distutils-SIG mailing list