https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460917
Pavel Raiskup <prais...@redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
See Also| |https://bugzilla.redhat.com
| |/show_bug.cgi?id=1452202
--- Comment #6 from Pavel Raiskup <prais...@redhat.com> ---
(In reply to Jakub Kadlčík from comment #5)
> Personally I have no problem with both rpkg-client and dist-git-client.
> May clime use what he likes best (even some other name)
The dist-git-client naming would mean that we are more coupled with 'dist-git'
project; that naming would be also better if we wanted to e.g. rename
'/bin/rpkg' into e.g. '/bin/dist-git' and do some distro-agnostic development
in this project.
OTOH, if we want to just provide '/bin/rpkg' for compatibility with previous
'rpkg', any 'rpkg-*' name is probably better.
> > %package -n rpkg
>
> This will create a subpackage called 'rpkg' (not 'rpkg-client-rpkg') which I
> believe is still considered as name conflict. Can anyone confirm or deny
> that, please?
That's not a conflict IMO. The 'rpkg' binary rpm doesn't exist in (rather
new) Fedora, as that's intentional decision done by release-engineering.
> > %files -n rpkg
>
> and no %files section for the whole package means, that the rpkg-client RPM
> is not even built.
>
> I am sorry, I don't understand the whole rpkg subpackge idea, can you please
> clarify it for me?
That's because rel-eng guys don't want to maintain this ~100 lines script
anymore in /usr/bin (they provide it as %doc file only). Theirs point is
that this script was never meant to be working; and the fact that we have
found an use-case for it doesn't count :). Rhbz#1452202.
> As I see it, the purpose of this package is to ship a single executable
> python script `%{_bindir}/rpkg` which imports `pyrpkg` and therefore it
> requires python2-rpkg. That's basically it. Why to use subpackages at all?
> Can't we have just a simple rpkg-client package which has the
> (Build)Requires and %files itself?
There's 'rpkg' package in Fedora (dist-git project, even if it doesn't
generate 'rpkg' RPM anymore). So to provide /bin/rpkg we need to have
different dist-git name, nevertheless I think we can still build 'rpkg'
package.
> I see that you want to stick to generating a RPM named 'rpkg' for some
> reason, but I don't understand why. Why is it better than RPM named
> 'rpkg-client'?
There are packages that depend on binary package 'rpkg' (which was removed
from fedora). So the point is to provide 'rpkg' again without changing other
packages (e.g. to avoid requiring 'rpkg-client' on Fedora >= 26, and 'rpkg'
on RHEL and older fedoras).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
