Excerpts from John Dulaney's message of 2015-11-19 17:11 -05:00: > Since Fedora is now requiring python2 packages have a buildrequires > of python2-setuptools, I put together a quick metapackage(0)(1) that in turn > requires python-setuptools. This will make packaging for Fedora and > epel to be somewhat easier. > > What are your thoughts on this, and should we include this in epel? > > As an alternative, it may not be a bad idea to have one large metapackage > that builds sub-metapackages for the various similar situations. Thoughts > on this?
Would it be easier to request the RHEL packages to add a virtual Provides for the python2-* name? That is, python-setuptools in RHEL could provide python2-setuptools. -- Dan Callaghan <dcall...@redhat.com> Senior Software Engineer, Products & Technologies Operations Red Hat, Inc.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
