Re: %pyproject_install: .dist-info vs .egg-info

Am 29.11.20 um 23:11 schrieb Donald Stufft: Unless there’s something fedora specific going on, that should be correct. Upstream side, anytime pip installs from a Wheel it produces a dist-info instead of a egg-info, so if there was some compatibility issue, it should have been exposed awhile a

Re: %pyproject_install: .dist-info vs .egg-info

> On Nov 29, 2020, at 5:00 PM, Felix Schwarz wrote: > > Hey, > > I just noticed that the new packaging macros create a .dist-info directory > instead of .egg-info. > > Just to be sure: There is no incompatibility between these two, right? So > setuptools-based code can still retrieve all th

%pyproject_install: .dist-info vs .egg-info

Hey, I just noticed that the new packaging macros create a .dist-info directory instead of .egg-info. Just to be sure: There is no incompatibility between these two, right? So setuptools-based code can still retrieve all the package metadata in .dist-info directories? (If so I can just updat

Re: Flatpak and __pycache__

On 11/29/20 3:22 PM, Kalev Lember wrote: Can do. However, one question: When we find code in /app/lib(64)/pythonX.Y, do we bytecompile with /usr/bin/pythonX.Y or /app/bin/pythonX.Y? Awesome, thanks! It depends: for python2.7 (gimp flatpak) we use python2.7 re-built for /app prefix (s

Re: Flatpak and __pycache__

On 11/29/20 3:22 PM, Kalev Lember wrote: >  > for python_libdir in `find "$RPM_BUILD_ROOT" -type d|grep -E > "/usr/lib(64)?/python[0-9]\.[0-9]$"`; > > ... which should use prefix instead of hardcoding /usr (or alternatively scan > both /usr and /app). Can do. How

Re: Flatpak and __pycache__

On 11/29/20 7:35 AM, Kalev Lember wrote: On Sun, Nov 29, 2020 at 1:55 AM Miro Hrončok > wrote: On 11/28/20 10:06 PM, Ville-Pekka Vainio wrote: > Hi, > > I'm slowly working on reviving the Finnish spell-checking stack. When > working on the libv