Hello Pythonistas.
I came across a couple packages that only install .dist-info in
%python3_sitelib/arch, or an additional .pth file.
E.g. it's a Python-packaged command line tool that installs /usr/bin/foo +
.dist-info only (e.g. badchars, ddiskit, fuzza, isrcsubmit, ksc, pwncat,
python-vevents, urlbuster, snallygaster). Or it installs a .pth file +
dist-info.only (e.g. python-coverage_pth).
Currently, there is only one way to use %pyproject_save_files with them:
%pyproject_save_files '*'
THis works because a special case exists in %pyproject_save_files to support
automated packaging e.g. in Copr. When the list of module globs contains '*',
we assume no modules at all are OK. However, we do not allow '*' in official
Fedora packages.
%pyproject_save_files currently requires at least one argument. So there is no
way to call it with no globs. Currently, such packages need to manually list
%{python3_sitelib}/xxx-%{version}.dist-info in %files. And they don't benefit
from automatic %license discovery. I want to change that, but I want to consult
the API ideas:
1. Allow %pyproject_save_files without arguments
================================================
%pyproject_install
%pyproject_save_files
Simple, easy. Calling %pyproject_save_files without arguments will work and it
will only save the .dist-info for %{pyproject_files}. (This will allow to use
the pyproject RPM declarative BuildSystem without BuildOption(install) as well.)
Are there any downsides? Even if packages forget to add arguments to
%pyproject_save_files, this will work:
%install
%pyproject_install
%pyproject_save_files
%files -n python3-foo -f %{pyproject_files}
%{python3_sitelib}/foo/
My only worry now is that the "default" behavior of %pyproject_save_files
exists only to accommodate a very niche need.
2. Empty string argument
========================
%pyproject_install
%pyproject_save_files ''
Empty argument means no modules. I don't like this, it's hard to read, hard to
explain.
3. Another +argument
====================
%pyproject_install
%pyproject_save_files +nomodules
We already have +auto, so this would be another +thing. I don't like this much,
but more than 2.
4. Another short option
=======================
%pyproject_install
%pyproject_save_files -M
(The character choice is arbitrary.) We already have -l/-L. This would be
another such option.
5. Do not require %pyproject_save_files in that case
====================================================
%pyproject_install
This would populate %{pyproject_files} with the .dist-info only.
Subsequent %pyproject_save_files calls would override/expand it.
However, there are challenges: what happens if there are multiple wheels
installed this way? etc.
-----
I'd probably go with option 1. But perhaps there's something else I have not
figured out. Thoughts?
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
Fedora Matrix: mhroncok
--
_______________________________________________
python-devel mailing list -- python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
