On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 5:28 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
> Ah, OK - this makes sense.
>
> Framing it in terms of the required input file, the two most suitable
> names would be:
>
> * "pyproject.toml compatible spec files"
> * "setup.py only spec files"
>
> I'd suggest keeping the current wheel-cent
On 18 November 2017 at 06:54, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 8:43 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> Switching to a wheel based build doesn't change either the starting
>> point (which is still an sdist) or the end point (which is still a
>> policy compliant RPM), it changes the interna
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 8:43 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On 17 November 2017 at 11:55, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 5:37 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> > So the two possible approaches are:
>> >
>> > * traditional sdist: "setup.py build", "setup.py install"
>> > * Current wheel
On 17 November 2017 at 11:55, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 5:37 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> > So the two possible approaches are:
> >
> > * traditional sdist: "setup.py build", "setup.py install"
> > * Current wheel macros: "setup.py bdist_wheel", "pip install "
> >
> > If we
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 5:37 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On 17 November 2017 at 01:51, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 16, 2017 4:59 AM, "Nick Coghlan" wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Rather than emphasising the absence of setup.py, I'd emphasise the use of
>> wheel files:
>>
>>
>> * "Defining an RPM based o
On 17 November 2017 at 04:50, Jason L Tibbitts III
wrote:
> Note also that the guidelines are in the wiki for convenience, but
> there have been at least two efforts to move them to a "better" format.
> And I would truly love to have a companion set of documents which aren't
> guidelines but whic
On 17 November 2017 at 01:51, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Nov 16, 2017 4:59 AM, "Nick Coghlan" wrote:
>
> Rather than emphasising the absence of setup.py, I'd emphasise the use of
> wheel files:
>
>
> * "Defining an RPM based on a wheel build process"
> * "Defining an RPM based on a setup.py f
> "TK" == Toshio Kuratomi writes:
TK> However, you should check with tibbs/FPC about
TK> whether the definitions/list of macros are an altogether dated
TK> concept.
I think it's reasonable to document macros which are going to need to
use. Python packaging just isn't sufficiently regularize
> "NC" == Nick Coghlan writes:
NC> Even though it's just a new informational link, I'm guessing we
NC> still need to file an FPC ticket for that?
You can just ask me for super minor things, but it does sound like this
could use a bit of exposition in the guidelines, and that would at least
n
On Nov 16, 2017 4:59 AM, "Nick Coghlan" wrote:
On 16 November 2017 at 22:33, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> Adding the link makes sense to me. Adding all the macros definition to the
> wiki does not make sense to me, but form different reasons. I think that
> having %py3_build_egg and %py3_install_egg t
- Original Message -
> From: "Nick Coghlan"
> To: "Fedora Python SIG"
> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 1:59:24 PM
> Subject: Re: flit
> Even though it's just a new informational link, I'm guessing we still need to
> file an FPC t
On 16 November 2017 at 22:33, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> Adding the link makes sense to me. Adding all the macros definition to the
> wiki does not make sense to me, but form different reasons. I think that
> having %py3_build_egg and %py3_install_egg there is just not necessary.
> Since there are mor
On 16.11.2017 08:17, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On 16 November 2017 at 16:51, Elliott Sales de Andrade
mailto:quantum.anal...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On 16 November 2017 at 01:31, Nick Coghlan mailto:ncogh...@gmail.com>> wrote:
However, if flit is now adding its own shim implcitly, then the
On 16 November 2017 at 16:51, Elliott Sales de Andrade <
quantum.anal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 16 November 2017 at 01:31, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>>
>> However, if flit is now adding its own shim implcitly, then the answer
>> would just be "Yes".
>>
>
> There's no need for a shim; basically use fli
On 16 November 2017 at 01:31, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On 16 November 2017 at 12:30, Orion Poplawski wrote:
>
>> So - is it possible to build rpms with flit?
>>
>
>
There are already some packages that are built using flit:
$ dnf repoquery --disablerepo=\* --enablerepo=fedora-source --arch=src
--w
On 16 November 2017 at 12:30, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> So - is it possible to build rpms with flit?
>
I haven't checked recently, but I believe flit still omits `setup.py` from
its sdists by default, and the Python RPM macros are still expecting to be
able to call that directly.
If that's still
16 matches
Mail list logo
