[Distutils] Compatibility of bdist_rpm with Fedora packaging instructions

Tarek Ziadé ziade.tarek at gmail.com
Thu Nov 10 11:06:32 CET 2011

On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Paul Nasrat <pnasrat at gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't think bdist_rpm should track vendor packaging requirements,
> purely as those recommendations may change faster than the release
> process of distutils. I also believe bdist_rpm may be going away in
> the future:

Yes I confirm this. We removed it in packaging because we believe it
should be maintained by the RPM communities -- with their own release
cycles etc.

FWIW I have a custom version in the pypi2rpm project where I just feed
a .spec file to the bdist_rpm command, so I can do proper RHEL or
Fedora packaging.

> For Fedora have you considered rpmdev-newspec which can creates a
> templated python spec file for your packages.
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package
> Paul
> On 8 November 2011 21:40, Stanley A. Klein <sklein at cpcug.org> wrote:
>> I will need to build some Python packages for Fedora and Centos.  The spec
>> file produced by bdist_rpm automatically includes the statement
>> %files -f INSTALLED_FILES
>> The Fedora Python packaging instruction includes a recommendation to avoid
>> use of INSTALLED_FILES and provides some alternatives.  That is the first
>> incompatibility I've encountered, but there may be more.
>> The bdist_rpm code probably should be changed to enable compatibility.
>> Meanwhile, is there a workaround?
>> Stan Klein
>> _______________________________________________
>> Distutils-SIG maillist  -  Distutils-SIG at python.org
>> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
> _______________________________________________
> Distutils-SIG maillist  -  Distutils-SIG at python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig

Tarek Ziadé | http://ziade.org

More information about the Distutils-SIG mailing list