Hi all,
This is a webrev for the creation of SUNWpython26-lxml. I've asked
Keith and John Levon who are both interested to comment. Here's the
initial back and forth.
Comments are in-line. New webrev at
http://cr.opensolaris.org/~clayb/8339/webrev2/
Thank you,
Clay
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009, John Levon wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 09:46:06PM -0600, Clay Baenziger wrote:
>
>> The changes are relatively small (see the webrev at
>> http://cr.opensolaris.org/~clayb/8339/[1]). There is not really any
>
> Not a fix for this change, but this package should be delivering into
> vendor-packages not site-packages.
See below about 'f none path1=path2'.
> pkginfo2.4: You didn't update the VERSION in this file
No, I wanted to be able to rebuild the original package, but thinking on it
more. It does seem that changing the version to match the 2.6 package seems
like the right thing to do.
> prototype*: Consensus is that permissions on .py files should be 644.
Thank you, changed.
> I've not seen the 'f none usr/...=/usr...' thing before? What does this
> mean?
Entries of the form 'f none path1=path2' takes path1 and put it into the
package to be delivered into path2. So here we're taking the site-packages
rooted tree and delivering as a vendor-packages rooted tree.
> I presume there's some changes to actually build the package twice, the
> second time setting $(PYTHON_VERS). Where are those changes?
No, as there's no need to rebuild older packages but getting rid of the 2.4
ability entirely until we drop Python 2.4 from OpenSolaris seemed like a bad
idea
> regards
> john
>
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009, Keith Mitchell wrote:
> Hi,
>
> My notes on the webrev:
>
> Makefile:
> - The changes seem to force us to edit the Makefile to compile python-lxml
> for different versions of Python. This may or may not be ok given that we
> want to hand this off to SFW, but it'd be cleaner if we could have something
> akin to what IPS does, where "make 2.4" would build SUNWpython24-lxml and
> "make 2.6" would build SUNWpython26-lxml, etc.
Cool way to do it! Done
> - If we set PYTHON_VERS=2.4, we'll get a package named SUNWpython24-lxml,
> but the pkginfo2.4 PKG="SUNWpython-lxml" - will this be a problem?
It will require the user to know to rename that directory. The integration dock
will reject such a package (since the name has not been registered).
> - 67-68: Why are we rm -rf'ing proto and packages in clean?
In case we build a different version next time
> - 69: rm -rf ${PKG}
Thank you
> - 72: Do we need to worry about referencing different setup.py's based on
> python version?
No setup.py seems to use the version of Python it's called with as the hint as
to which version to build for. Thus:
PYTHON=/usr/bin/python${PYTHON_VERS}
> pkginfo*:
> - I'm not fully familiar with the syntax for these files, but are we
> creating links from vendor-packages/lxml to site-packages/lxml? If so, I
> don't think that's really necessary, since Python searches both
> vendor-packages and site-packages when looking for modules (unless I'm wrong,
> in which case, please correct me). Again, I don't know if we want to just let
> SFW deal with this when we manage to pass it off to them.
No, we deliver only into vendor-packages. You might find the Sun manual
Application Packaging Developer's Guide to be a handy decoder ring for this
kind of stuff -- to ensure I'm not insane -- (section 2 talks of the pkginfo
file for example): http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/805-6338/6j5vn5q4i?a=browse
> - Keith
>
> Clay Baenziger wrote:
>> Hello John or Keith,
>> I was wondering if you two would mind code reviewing my Makefile and
>> pkginfo/pkgprototypes for SUNWpython26-lxml? If so, let me know and I'll CC
>> you on a message to caiman-discuss to document the webrev.
>> The changes are relatively small (see the webrev at
>> http://cr.opensolaris.org/~clayb/8339/[1]). There is not really any style
>> concerns other than sanity for building the package and ensuring I got all
>> parts of LXML which are built. Once I get this code reviewed, I can work
>> with David Comay to deliver the package for integration into the development
>> IPS repository.
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Clay
>> [1]:
>> Note, webrev seems confused but the following three files were accidentally
>> in mercurial and are here hg removed:
>> packages/SUNWpython-lxml/lxml-2.1.2/setupinfo.pyc
>> packages/SUNWpython-lxml/lxml-2.1.2/versioninfo.pyc
>> packages/SUNWpython-lxml/lxml-2.1.2/build/lib.solaris-2.11-i86pc-2.4/lxml/usedoctest.py
>>
>
