https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1538658



--- Comment #13 from Satoru SATOH <ss...@redhat.com> ---
FYI.

I've released the new version 0.9.4 contains rpm related fixes and ...

(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #12)
> (In reply to Brett Lentz from comment #11)
> > (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #10)
> > > > %global sum Python library to load and dump configuration files in 
> > > > various formats
> > > Using normal Summary: and then %summary subsequently saves one line ;)
> > > 
> > 
> > Not true. The summary is used in 3 places because of the python2 & python3
> > sub-packaged. The macro saves copy/pasting the same text in 3 places.  :)
> 
> I didn't mean copying the text three times. I meant something like this:
> Summary: blah blah blah
> ...
> Summary: %summary
> ...
> Summary: %summary
> 
> Macro %summary is automatically defined to the contents of the last Summary
> line.

I didn't know this works. Thanks a lot for letting me know. Fixed it in the
upstream.

> > > During build I see the following error:
> > > >     import cbor
> > > > ImportError: No module named cbor
> > > Is some dependency missing?

To keep dependencies at a minimum, anyconfig can process most ImportError-es at
runtime correctly and works well w/o some dependencies like cbor are missing.
And the new version becomes dependent on only some popular libraries by
default, so this kind of error disappears as much as possible, I think.

> > > and later:
> > > > toml.py:docstring of 
> > > > anyconfig.backend.toml.Parser._load_from_stream_fn:6: WARNING: 
> > > > Definition list ends without a blank line; unexpected unindent.
> > > > /builddir/build/BUILD/python-anyconfig-RELEASE_0.9.3/anyconfig/backend/xml.py:docstring
> > > >  of anyconfig.backend.xml._tweak_ns:4: WARNING: Field list ends without 
> > > > a blank line; unexpected unindent.
> > > > /builddir/build/BUILD/python-anyconfig-RELEASE_0.9.3/docs/api/anyconfig.cli.rst:4:
> > > >  WARNING: autodoc: failed to import module u'anyconfig.cli'; the 
> > > > following exception was raised:
> > > > Traceback (most recent call last):
> > > >   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sphinx/ext/autodoc.py", line 
> > > > 658, in import_object
> > > >     __import__(self.modname)
> > > >   File 
> > > > "/builddir/build/BUILD/python-anyconfig-RELEASE_0.9.3/anyconfig/cli.py",
> > > >  line 42, in <module>
> > > >     sys.stdout = codecs.getwriter(_ENCODING)(sys.stdout)
> > > >   File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/codecs.py", line 1009, in getwriter
> > > >     return lookup(encoding).streamwriter
> > > > TypeError: lookup() argument 1 must be string, not None
> > > > done
> > > 
> > This looks like a bug in the docs. I'll point it out to upstream.
> Great.

Still I've been looking into this and may take some time to fix them
unfortunately.
But I don't think it's critical for packaging.

> > > And now the hard part: what is the difference in behaviour or output 
> > > between
> > > anyconfig-2 and anyconfig-3?
> > 
> > There is no difference, AFAICS.
> OK. If there is no difference, then only one version of the executable
> should be packed. See
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Executables_in_.2Fusr.2Fbin:
> > If the executables provide the same functionality independent of whether 
> > they are run on top of Python 2 or Python 3, then only the Python 3 version 
> > of the executable should be packaged.
> 
> You went through the effort to get the symlinks right, but it now seems that
> not actually necessary ;(

Fixed in the upstream.


Brett-san,
could you please take a look at the RPM SPEC template in the upstream and try
to arrange the new version of RPM SPEC and srpm?
I tried to keep there are least differences between mine (upstream) and yours
as much as possible but maybe there are issues remained I'm not aware of or
forgot.

-- 
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

Reply via email to