On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 04:37:13PM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-08-20 at 16:01 +0200, Erik Skultety wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 03:37:41PM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> > > - $PYTHON ./setup.py rpm
> > > + rm -f dist/*.tar.{{ archive_format }}
> > > + $PYTHON ./setup.py sdist
> > > + rpmbuild --clean --define "_topdir `pwd`/rpmbuild" -ta
> > > dist/*.tar.{{ archive_format }}
> >
> > So what if you used a standard bdist_rpm command from distutils core, I
> > believe
> > $PYTHON ./setup.py bdist_rpm --bdist-base <foo> would be equal to your
> > _topdir.
> > Although, that's just what I've digested from distutils docs, so even though
> > bdist_rpm has a plethora of options you can specify there can always be one
> > we'll be missing :P
>
> I haven't been able to find any bdist_rpm documentation that is not
> filed under Python 2, which leads me to believe it might not be as
> supported (if at all) under Python 3; moreover, the current
> documentation[1] seems to point to FPM as the preferred way to
> generate RPM packages, but that process doesn't looks like it
> involves spec files at all and bundle a whole lot of other stuff
> along with your actual software, so I'd say it's not really suitable
> for our purpose.
>
> In any case, I would still prefer the two-step approach (dist plus
> rpmbuild) to building RPMs because it is consistent with what we do
> for all other build systems (autotools and Perl's Module::Build).
>
>
> [1] https://packaging.python.org/overview/#operating-system-packages
Fair enough,
Reviewed-by: Erik Skultety <eskul...@redhat.com>
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
