Re: Automatic Provides: Discussion summary and plan

2016-08-25 Thread Nick Coghlan
On 24 August 2016 at 02:10, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: >> "PV" == Petr Viktorin writes: > > PV> - Make it standard practice in Fedora to use this data and treat the > PV> spec file as an immutable generated artifact. > > If you're saying that any changes which are made to the spec file (say,

Re: Automatic Provides: Discussion summary and plan

2016-08-23 Thread Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 12:48:40PM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > "ZJ" == Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek writes: > > ZJ> %changelog would have to be stored separately. This would apply even > ZJ> for qthe case when no "external" changes were made — just normal updates > ZJ> by the packag

Re: Automatic Provides: Discussion summary and plan

2016-08-23 Thread Jason L Tibbitts III
> "ZJ" == Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek writes: ZJ> %changelog would have to be stored separately. This would apply even ZJ> for qthe case when no "external" changes were made — just normal updates ZJ> by the package managers — since there's no way for pyp2rpm to know ZJ> what happened in the p

Re: Automatic Provides: Discussion summary and plan

2016-08-23 Thread Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 11:10:08AM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > "PV" == Petr Viktorin writes: > > PV> - Make it standard practice in Fedora to use this data and treat the > PV> spec file as an immutable generated artifact. > > If you're saying that any changes which are made to the

Re: Automatic Provides: Discussion summary and plan

2016-08-23 Thread Jason L Tibbitts III
> "PV" == Petr Viktorin writes: PV> - Make it standard practice in Fedora to use this data and treat the PV> spec file as an immutable generated artifact. If you're saying that any changes which are made to the spec file (say, by release engineering doing a rebuild or by someone tweaking the

Re: Automatic Provides: Discussion summary and plan

2016-08-23 Thread Petr Viktorin
On 08/17/2016 06:52 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: On 15 August 2016 at 19:42, Igor Gnatenko wrote: It can't track/change BR/R's as RPM is Turing complete and impossible to parse. Imagine, we have pythonXdist(foo) extracted from PyPI metadata, but in Fedora we still need to add some more BR for that,

Re: Automatic Provides: Discussion summary and plan

2016-08-17 Thread Nick Coghlan
On 15 August 2016 at 19:42, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > It can't track/change BR/R's as RPM is Turing complete and impossible to > parse. > Imagine, we have pythonXdist(foo) extracted from PyPI metadata, but in > Fedora we still need to add some more BR for that, so we add it. When > new release comes

Re: Automatic Provides: Discussion summary and plan

2016-08-15 Thread Igor Gnatenko
It can't track/change BR/R's as RPM is Turing complete and impossible to parse. Imagine, we have pythonXdist(foo) extracted from PyPI metadata, but in Fedora we still need to add some more BR for that, so we add it. When new release comes (still without added BR in upstream) rebase-helper will not

Re: Automatic Provides: Discussion summary and plan

2016-08-15 Thread Tomas Orsava
On 08/12/2016 05:40 PM, Petr Viktorin wrote: The idea with pyp2rpm is to work with the Python Packaging Authority so that the upstream metadata *can* be converted automatically. Ideally Fedora packagers would fix packaging problems upstream, rather than maintaining spec files. Ideas for a tool

Re: Automatic Provides: Discussion summary and plan

2016-08-12 Thread Petr Viktorin
On 08/12/2016 03:17 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: "PV" == Petr Viktorin writes: PV> The magic worries me. It seems like if these macros were finished, PV> you'd be about the only person capable of maintaining them. I don't think so. There are other committers, and the core of it didn't eve

Re: Automatic Provides: Discussion summary and plan

2016-08-12 Thread Jason L Tibbitts III
> "PV" == Petr Viktorin writes: PV> The magic worries me. It seems like if these macros were finished, PV> you'd be about the only person capable of maintaining them. I don't think so. There are other committers, and the core of it didn't even come from me so there's certainly at least two

Re: Automatic Provides: Discussion summary and plan

2016-08-12 Thread Petr Viktorin
On 08/11/2016 07:37 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: "TO" == Tomas Orsava writes: TO> That looks incredible! Why didn't it see the light of day? Time TO> constraints or some technical issues? Well, it sort of fell by the wayside as I got involved with other things. I've learned a lot about RP

Re: Automatic Provides: Discussion summary and plan

2016-08-11 Thread Jason L Tibbitts III
> "TO" == Tomas Orsava writes: TO> That looks incredible! Why didn't it see the light of day? Time TO> constraints or some technical issues? Well, it sort of fell by the wayside as I got involved with other things. I've learned a lot about RPM internals since then and I know I really should

Re: Automatic Provides: Discussion summary and plan

2016-08-11 Thread Tomas Orsava
Hi! No, this automatic Provides generator does not create "python(name)". Only "pythonX.Ydist()" and "pythonXdist()". On 08/10/2016 07:09 PM, Avram Lubkin wrote: Is an unversioned python(name) also being created automagically? I manually create these for the command line tools which support

Re: Automatic Provides: Discussion summary and plan

2016-08-11 Thread Tomas Orsava
Yeah, I really wish I had actually pushed through the macro work I had done last year. You can see that at https://pagure.io/python-macros A spec would look like this: https://pagure.io/python-macros/blob/master/f/test1.spec And most of that is actually implemented. Note the almost complete

Re: Automatic Provides: Discussion summary and plan

2016-08-11 Thread Miro Hrončok
On 10.8.2016 23:36, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: A spec would look like this: https://pagure.io/python-macros/blob/master/f/test1.spec And most of that is actually implemented. Note the almost complete absence of version-specific bits. That package builds for an arbitrary number of system pytho

Re: Automatic Provides: Discussion summary and plan

2016-08-10 Thread Jason L Tibbitts III
> "PV" == Petr Viktorin writes: PV> No, getting. Example expansion: PV> %{python_dist_name ndg_HTTPSclient} => ndg-httpsclient Ah, OK, that makes much more sense. PV> Would "python3_requires" and "python3_buildrequires" be better? I think so. PV> Please do and share your thoughts, I trust

Re: Automatic Provides: Discussion summary and plan

2016-08-10 Thread Petr Viktorin
On 08/10/2016 06:49 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: "PV" == Petr Viktorin writes: PV> * One macro for getting the canonical (normalized) dist-name: PV> %{python_dist_name NAME} Do you mean "setting" here? No, getting. Example expansion: %{python_dist_name ndg_HTTPSclient} => ndg-httpscl

Re: Automatic Provides: Discussion summary and plan

2016-08-10 Thread Avram Lubkin
Is an unversioned python(name) also being created automagically? I manually create these for the command line tools which support multiple Python versions, where the python2-name and python3-name package both provide python(name) and then the name package requires python(name) with a recommends for

Re: Automatic Provides: Discussion summary and plan

2016-08-10 Thread Jason L Tibbitts III
> "PV" == Petr Viktorin writes: PV> * One macro for getting the canonical (normalized) dist-name: PV> %{python_dist_name NAME} Do you mean "setting" here? PV> * Four macros for adding Requires and BuildRequires lines (which use PV> the python_dist_name macro above): PV> %{requires

Automatic Provides: Discussion summary and plan

2016-08-10 Thread Petr Viktorin
To help automatic building RPMs from native Python packages, we need an automatic way to record the software's upstream name (dist name, name on PyPI) in Fedora packages. For this, we are using RPM's automatic dependency generator written by Per Øyvind Karlsen and Neal Gompa, which automatically