[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)]

1)  The Python StrictVersion and LooseVersion classes in Setuptools used to 
validate and compare versions are incompatible with RPM's lexicographical 
order.  Even the setuptools metadata documentation, which is in full force and 
implemented, says alpha and beta and rc are expressly permitted (and 
ENCOURAGED) in the version name, and setuptools' dependency resolution 
actually uses that information.  It is clear that the only solution that 
unbreaks bdist_rpm is version rewriting of prerelease packages.

2) We already know this "fedora-specific" blahblah is false.  My patches work 
fine in other distros and can be disabled easily.

This guy can't tell his ass from his head, and he has the audacity to come 
here with this ignorant chicanery, trying to convince us that the world is 
flat that the PEPs and the deployed setuptools code do not work the way they 
are implemented, that "training" is the solution (see above for technical 
reasons why "training" is not only draining the ocean but technically 
impossible) and that we're committing a crime against nature by including 
these patches.

I strongly urge those of you with the knowledge and the power, to do the right 
thing, and ignore this charlatan.

El Viernes 13 Marzo 2009, Gerry Reno escribió:
> Manuel,
>   'bdist_rpm' is NOT broken.  What is broken is packagers misuse of the
> 'version' and 'release' strings.  They do stupid things like put
> version='3.0' and release='rc1' and then wonder why their final release
> cannot update the release candidate.  THIS IS A TRAINING ISSUE.   Their
> poorly planned sequence of release designations is not in lexical
> order.  They should be putting version='3.0' and release='0.rc1' or
> '0_rc1' and then their final release of version='3.0' and release='1'
> WILL update their release candidate.  AGAIN, this is not something that
> is broken with 'bdist_rpm' IT IS A TRAINING ISSUE.   Packagers need to
> understand the importance of lexical ordering when using RPM.  You
> cannot make a patch that outlaws stupidity.
>
>
>   I vote a big -1 on this patch because it interjects Fedora-specific
> modifications into bdist_rpm.
>
>
> Regards,
> Gerry


-- 

	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/

Repartee is something we think of twenty-four hours too late.
		-- Mark Twain

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/attachments/20090313/8146a22f/attachment.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/20090313/8146a22f/attachment.pgp>