On 18 November 2015 at 02:29, Jason L Tibbitts III <ti...@math.uh.edu> wrote: >>>>>> "NC" == Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> writes: > > NC> If so, then there's some relevant work currently under way upstream > NC> to improve the interaction between Python installation tools and > NC> build systems to improve the metadata extraction process, rather > NC> than relying on implementation details of setuptools. > > If that's the case, could someone bang out a few paragraphs that we > could use as a blueprint for some packaging guidelines? An example > spec, or even just the file layout and some idea of how autogenerated > dependencies would work would be enough. I know this stuff is a bit > new, but we've been doing a really big overhaul of the python stuff and > we'd like to at least design to accommodate this rather than having to > do it all over again once this new format comes out.
The main policy changes would be to update these two section to mention keeping dist-info directories: * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Files_to_include * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Reviewer_checklist It would also be desirable to state a preference for dist-info over egg-info. Thinking about it a bit further, I don't think the latest round of upstream changes should impact the metadata analysis step, as the metadata querying changes are designed to support getting at the metadata without building and installing the package first, and that's not a consideration for the RPM use case. However, they could potentially affect the py2/3_build macros, as we're looking to finally migrate away from *requiring* the presence of a setup.py file in every source tree, and instead allow out-of-tree build tools, with machine readable instructions for bootstrapping them into the build environment. The draft PEP for that is at https://github.com/pypa/interoperability-peps/pull/54/files and upstream discussions are on distutils-sig I'd been thinking using "pip install" instead of "setup.py install" in the build macros would be sufficient, but I now realise that isn't the case - if a project uses flit (for example) as its build utility, then we're going to need to generate a suitable BuildRequires in pyp2rpm and similar tools (perhaps using the "BuidlRequires: pythonX.Ydist(flit)" format). The build macros themselves could still delegate the task of working out the right build command to invoke to pip, though. Regards, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ python-devel mailing list python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/python-devel
