Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] scripts/pythondistdeps: Implement provides/requires for extras packages + Rework error messages (#1546)
Closed #1546. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1546#event-4626456817___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] scripts/pythondistdeps: Implement provides/requires for extras packages + Rework error messages (#1546)
I'm closing this PR as it has been reopened against the newly separate python-rpm-packaging project: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/python-rpm-packaging/pull/7 -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1546#issuecomment-824244556___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Clarify %check script use-case by executing it before %install (#1618)
This will seriously complicate my life as a maintainer. There are many good use cases for doing %check on the content of %install. Your suggestion is to do a fake install in %build and check that, but that 1. won't test the actually installed stuff, 2. make me copy a possibly lots of code (not all %install sections are just %make_install!!!) and keep it with only slight changes in two places. That will be a spec file from hell. Please don't do this. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1618#issuecomment-81450___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] scripts/pythondistdeps: Print Provides-Extra entries for Python packa… (#1014)
> We have it ready in Fedora: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/PythonExtras > > We want to backport it here but we have been swamped with many other things. > > cc @torsava I've opened a PR to upstream our Fedora full-blown handling of Extras: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1546 @gordonmessmer Please take a look, I think it implements what this PR does and more. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1014#issuecomment-808206129___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Remove remaining Python helpers and scripts from the repo (#1607)
Indeed both choices are not perfect. However, the Python parts are getting rather complex. We even have a full blown test suite for them in Fedora that we would be able to finally upstream if there's a separate repo. So overall, :+1: from me. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1607#issuecomment-808204484___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] scripts/pythondistdeps: Implement provides/requires for extras packages + Rework error messages (#1546)
In Fedora we have adapted the pythondistdeps.py script (that generates python3.Xdist(foo) dependencies) to also generate requirements on Python extras (e.g. python3.Xdist(foo[bar])) whenever upstream metadata indicate such dependency. The script was also adapted to be able to process a new Python extras packages that have the format `base_package+extras_name` (e.g. `python3-setuptools_scm+toml`) and generate provides and requires for them. This has been implemented in Fedora 33: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/PythonExtras The change also includes an improvement of the error messages: Previously the error messages were printed to stdout, they were part of the output of the script, and thus the words were treated like dependencies, sorted alphabetically, thus rendering the message unreadable. This change prints a single keyword indicating the error and details are outputted to stderr. It also outputs *** on purpose to ensure the dependency would not be valid, causing a failure of the build. You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1546 -- Commit Summary -- * scripts/pythondistdeps: Rework error messages * scripts/pythondistdeps: Implement provides/requires for extras packages -- File Changes -- M scripts/pythondistdeps.py (113) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1546.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1546.diff -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1546 ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Extras (#1541)
Closed #1541. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1541#event-4337554786___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Extras (#1541)
Apologies, I've made a mistake. I wanted to open a PR against my own fork to hammer out the kinks first. Closing for now. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1541#issuecomment-780015648___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Extras (#1541)
All 166 tests are passing. @hroncok Take a look please. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1541#issuecomment-780013285___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Extras (#1541)
@torsava pushed 2 commits. 84c0a7f0101125eed9c350c428626ceaf84b2e02 [DO NOT MERGE THIS] Our downstream test suite 3190112709309e7b2dbd744e8d74404b0418052d [DO NOT MERGE THIS] New test for extras -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. View it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1541/files/50080e4dd18b361c691fac67dd50c18ad7f304b5..3190112709309e7b2dbd744e8d74404b0418052d ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Extras (#1541)
First two commits are upstreaming of relevant Fedora changes: - https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-rpm-generators/c/d1a02fdda78743c796fe5c01cbb5287a8f3c873b?branch=rawhide - https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-rpm-generators/c/098c48d46d7f9eceb4b41eddd0b20b31611c8e41?branch=rawhide The extras implementation is a combination of 2 commits: - https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-rpm-generators/c/3b1100ba1f5cbf1b1ebde65adec82d13d6cc62a6?branch=rawhide - https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-rpm-generators/c/0c9665427c3dd51ee94a5757f1a49db77a8e53b5?branch=rawhide You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1541 -- Commit Summary -- * scripts/pythondistdeps: Rework error messages * scripts/pythondistdeps: Adapt Python version marker workaround for setuptools 42+ * scripts/pythondistdeps: Implement provides/requires for extras packages -- File Changes -- M scripts/pythondistdeps.py (108) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1541.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1541.diff -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1541 ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] pythondistdeps: Switch to importlib.metadata (#1317)
So, who has the power to merge this? @ffesti ? -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1317#issuecomment-748928961___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] pythondistdeps: Switch to importlib.metadata (#1317)
> Oh, I've been alerted by @torsava that my suggestions have been addressed. > Nice, thanks! The code looks good to me. If the external tests still pass, > let's ship it? > > We can probably test this in Fedora before merging if we want more testing > (but this is not necessary). > > Thank you @s-t-e-v-e-n-k! I'd prefer to merge it here, we've delayed the PR long enough :) We'll test it in Fedora in any case, and we can address possible issues later. Thank you @s-t-e-v-e-n-k for having patience with us :) -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1317#issuecomment-724772529___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] pythondistdeps: Switch to importlib.metadata (#1317)
@torsava commented on this pull request. > +try: +from importlib.metadata import PathDistribution +except ImportError: +from importlib_metadata import PathDistribution + +try: +from pathlib import Path +except ImportError: +from pathlib2 import Path + + +class Req(Requirement): +def __init__(self, requirement_string): +super(Req, self).__init__(requirement_string) +self.normalized_name = normalize_name(self.name) +self.legacy_normalized_name = legacy_normalize_name(self.name) With a change this big, I wouldn't worry about that. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1317#discussion_r515074212___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] pythondistdeps: Switch to importlib.metadata (#1317)
@torsava approved this pull request. Looks good to me! -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1317#pullrequestreview-508091467___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] pythondistdeps: Switch to importlib.metadata (#1317)
@torsava commented on this pull request. > @@ -142,9 +210,23 @@ def convert(name, operator, version_id): def normalize_name(name): @s-t-e-v-e-n-k Thinking more on this, since we have to keep this function, and since the class/static methods you currently use are used inside 2 different classes anyway, how about implementing the functionality as normal global functions? That way they could be used outside this script easily, and we would not need this wrapper. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1317#discussion_r503744048___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] pythondistdeps: Switch to importlib.metadata (#1317)
@torsava commented on this pull request. > @@ -142,9 +210,23 @@ def convert(name, operator, version_id): def normalize_name(name): Ah, right. In that case, yeah, a comment would be great. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1317#discussion_r503734008___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] pythondistdeps: Switch to importlib.metadata (#1317)
@torsava commented on this pull request. > +@classmethod +def normalize_name(klass, name): +"""https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0503/#normalized-names"""; +return re.sub(r'[-_.]+', '-', name).lower() + +@classmethod +def legacy_normalize_name(klass, name): +"""Like pkg_resources Distribution.key property""" +return re.sub(r'[-_]+', '-', name).lower() > I wonder why it is a classmethod and not a staticmethod (when it does not use > the "kalss" attribute at all). I would make it a property, but initialized > value is fine as well. It's also used outside of this class, so it can't be a property. But a static method/function makes sense. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1317#discussion_r503360841___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] pythondistdeps: Switch to importlib.metadata (#1317)
@torsava commented on this pull request. Besides the two mostly cosmetic comments, I think it looks good! > @@ -142,9 +210,23 @@ def convert(name, operator, version_id): def normalize_name(name): This function is now completely unused and can be removed. > +@classmethod +def normalize_name(klass, name): +"""https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0503/#normalized-names"""; +return re.sub(r'[-_.]+', '-', name).lower() + +@classmethod +def legacy_normalize_name(klass, name): +"""Like pkg_resources Distribution.key property""" +return re.sub(r'[-_]+', '-', name).lower() Nitpick: I'm not excited about the `klass` name instead of the standard `cls`. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1317#pullrequestreview-506555419___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] pythondistdeps: Switch to importlib.metadata (#1317)
@torsava commented on this pull request.
> from warnings import warn
+try:
+from importlib.metadata import PathDistribution
+except ImportError:
+from importlib_metadata import PathDistribution
+
+try:
+from pathlib import Path
+except ImportError:
+from pathlib2 import Path
+
+
+class Req(Requirement):
+@property
+def key(self):
+return self.name.lower().replace('_', '-')
And I agree with unifying the two ways to get a normalized name.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1317#discussion_r496527810___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] pythondistdeps: Switch to importlib.metadata (#1317)
@torsava commented on this pull request.
> from warnings import warn
+try:
+from importlib.metadata import PathDistribution
+except ImportError:
+from importlib_metadata import PathDistribution
+
+try:
+from pathlib import Path
+except ImportError:
+from pathlib2 import Path
+
+
+class Req(Requirement):
+@property
+def key(self):
+return self.name.lower().replace('_', '-')
@s-t-e-v-e-n-k I wasn't against ceasing to use the `key` property, I was
against passing different values in it's place. The name of the
property/function is immaterial.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1317#discussion_r496524935___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] pythondistdeps: Switch to importlib.metadata (#1317)
@torsava commented on this pull request.
> from warnings import warn
+try:
+from importlib.metadata import PathDistribution
+except ImportError:
+from importlib_metadata import PathDistribution
+
+try:
+from pathlib import Path
+except ImportError:
+from pathlib2 import Path
+
+
+class Req(Requirement):
+@property
+def key(self):
+return self.name.lower().replace('_', '-')
I'm also confused as to what that means..?
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1317#discussion_r494836924___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] pythondistdeps: Switch to importlib.metadata (#1317)
@torsava commented on this pull request.
> from warnings import warn
+try:
+from importlib.metadata import PathDistribution
+except ImportError:
+from importlib_metadata import PathDistribution
+
+try:
+from pathlib import Path
+except ImportError:
+from pathlib2 import Path
+
+
+class Req(Requirement):
+@property
+def key(self):
+return self.name.lower().replace('_', '-')
Ah, I see. Yeah, that should be fixed as well. @s-t-e-v-e-n-k please take a
look.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1317#discussion_r494236346___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] pythondistdeps: Switch to importlib.metadata (#1317)
@torsava commented on this pull request.
> from warnings import warn
+try:
+from importlib.metadata import PathDistribution
+except ImportError:
+from importlib_metadata import PathDistribution
+
+try:
+from pathlib import Path
+except ImportError:
+from pathlib2 import Path
+
+
+class Req(Requirement):
+@property
+def key(self):
+return self.name.lower().replace('_', '-')
To clarify a possible confusion, I think `key` always returned the same thing.
But this script had two modes, in legacy mode it used the `key` value, and in
pep503 mode it used the `normalize_name` function.
So yes, there are two different methods to convert the name, but that is
handled by this script, not by `Requirement.key`.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1317#discussion_r494230415___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] pythondistdeps: Switch to importlib.metadata (#1317)
@torsava commented on this pull request.
> from warnings import warn
+try:
+from importlib.metadata import PathDistribution
+except ImportError:
+from importlib_metadata import PathDistribution
+
+try:
+from pathlib import Path
+except ImportError:
+from pathlib2 import Path
+
+
+class Req(Requirement):
+@property
+def key(self):
+return self.name.lower().replace('_', '-')
Oh, how come? You think the [`Requirement.key`
property](https://setuptools.readthedocs.io/en/latest/pkg_resources.html) gave
different results in different situations?
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1317#discussion_r494227693___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] pythondistdeps: Switch to importlib.metadata (#1317)
@torsava commented on this pull request. > if normalized_names_require_pep503: -dep_normalized_name = normalize_name(dep.project_name) +dep_normalized_name = normalize_name(dep.name) else: dep_normalized_name = dep.key > Be careful with manual replaces for normalized names. There are two regexes > that this code supported before. The PEP 503 regex and the regex imported > from setuptools (described in here). I wasn't exactly sure what you meant by this comment, so I asked if the new code looks good to you to be sure. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1317#discussion_r494224179___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] pythondistdeps: Switch to importlib.metadata (#1317)
@torsava commented on this pull request. > if normalized_names_require_pep503: -dep_normalized_name = normalize_name(dep.project_name) +dep_normalized_name = normalize_name(dep.name) else: dep_normalized_name = dep.key @hroncok But the code continues to preserve both the legacy and pep503 conventions. So I'm not sure I understand what you mean. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1317#pullrequestreview-495425833___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] pythondistdeps: Switch to importlib.metadata (#1317)
@torsava commented on this pull request.
> else:
-dep_normalized_name = dep.key
+dep_normalized_name = dep.key.replace('_', '-')
The newest version looks good to me, and tests are passing.
The [documentation for
pkg_resources](https://setuptools.readthedocs.io/en/latest/pkg_resources.html)
says about `key`: An all-lowercase version of the project_name, useful for
comparison or indexing.
>From there you have to look up `project_name` and then `safe_name` function
>which generates it. So if we go by documentation, dots are not allowed in
>`key`. However, if you actually test it, they are there.
What do you think, @hroncok ?
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1317#discussion_r494166167___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] pythondistdeps: Switch to importlib.metadata (#1317)
@torsava commented on this pull request.
> -print('Conflicts:\t{} {} {}'.format(dep.key,
> '==', spec[1]))
+for dep in dist.requirements_for_extra(extra):
+for spec in dep.specifier:
+if spec.operator == '!=':
+print('Conflicts:\t{} {} {}'.format(dep.name,
'==', spec.version))
else:
-print('Requires:\t{} {} {}'.format(dep.key,
spec[0], spec[1]))
+print('Requires:\t{} {} {}'.format(dep.name,
spec.operator, spec.version))
@s-t-e-v-e-n-k Here you still use `dep.name` as a replacement for `dep.key`, is
there a reason?
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1317#discussion_r493363804___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] pythondistdeps: Switch to importlib.metadata (#1317)
@torsava commented on this pull request.
> else:
-dep_normalized_name = dep.key
+dep_normalized_name = dep.key.replace('_', '-')
In my testing, the previous setuptools version already has underscores replaced
in the `key` property, so I would suggest doing it too.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1317#discussion_r493362675___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] pythondistdeps: Switch to importlib.metadata (#1317)
@torsava commented on this pull request.
> else:
-dep_normalized_name = dep.key
+dep_normalized_name = dep.key.replace('_', '-')
Why do you still do the `replace` here, but not in the other places where you
use `dep.key`? I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong, but I don't understand it.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1317#pullrequestreview-494464867___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] pythondistdeps: Switch to importlib.metadata (#1317)
@torsava commented on this pull request. > +if isdir(path): +path = dirname(path) +res = re.search(r"/python(?P\d+\.\d+)/", path) This breaks detection of Python version from the name of the egg-info file. And I think you misunderstood me, I wasn't doubting the usefulness of the variable, I was asking why do you do `dirname` at all. ```suggestion res = re.search(r"/python(?P\d+\.\d+)/", path) ``` -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1317#pullrequestreview-494457340___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] pythondistdeps: Switch to importlib.metadata (#1317)
> Latest push now has every test successfully run the script, however that one > test still fails because there's a difference in behaviour between the script > in this repo and in python-rpm-generators. > > ``` > -if '>' == operator: > -# distutils does not behave this way, but this is > -# their recommendation > -# > https://mail.python.org/archives/list/distutils-...@python.org/thread/NWEQVTCX5CR2RKW2LT4H77PJTEINSX7P/ > +if operator == '>': > +# distutils will allow a prefix match with '>' > operator = '>=' > -version.increment() > +if operator == '<=': > +# distutils will not allow a prefix match with '<=' > +operator = '<' > ``` > > The differences in that block are the cause of the test failure as far as I > can work out. I believe the behaviour has been changed and you have the new correct version, but I'll double check. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1317#issuecomment-696766915___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] pythondistdeps: Switch to importlib.metadata (#1317)
@torsava requested changes on this pull request.
Hi @s-t-e-v-e-n-k ,
first of all, I'm really sorry the review took so long :(
I've pointed out some issues in the comments, mostly in the less-or-not-used
parts of the code.
The PR as a whole looks fantastic, great piece of engineering. And all our
tests are passing. Thanks!
> +if isdir(path):
+path_item = dirname(path)
+else:
+path_item = path
Why not just `path_item = path` (or just use `path` below instead)?
> -dep_normalized_name = dep.key
+dep_normalized_name = dep.name.lower().replace('_',
'-')
if args.legacy:
-name = 'pythonegg({})({})'.format(pyver_major, dep.key)
+name = 'pythonegg({})({})'.format(pyver_major,
dep.name.lower())
I've never used the legacy mode, I'm not even sure if anyone uses it. But for
consistency: Why is `dep.key` being replaced by slightly different expressions
in these two places?
> -print('Conflicts:\t{} {} {}'.format(dep.key,
> '==', spec[1]))
+for dep in dist.requirements_for_extra(extra):
+for spec in dep.specifier:
+if spec.operator == '!=':
+print('Conflicts:\t{} {} {}'.format(dep.name,
'==', spec.version))
else:
-print('Requires:\t{} {} {}'.format(dep.key,
spec[0], spec[1]))
+print('Requires:\t{} {} {}'.format(dep.name,
spec.operator, spec.version))
Another two places where `dep.key` is being replaced by yet different
expression. Maybe it would be worth creating the `key` property for
`Distribution` and unifying it.
> -for dep in dist.requires(extras=dist.extras):
-name = dep.key
-for spec in dep.specs:
-if spec[0] == '!=':
+for dep in dist.requirements + dist.extra_requirements:
+for spec in dep.specifier:
+if spec.operator == '!=':
if name not in py_deps:
-py_deps[name] = []
-spec = ('==', spec[1])
+py_deps[dep.name] = []
+spec = ('==', spec.version)
if spec not in py_deps[name]:
-py_deps[name].append(spec)
+py_deps[dep.name].append(spec)
`name` is not initialized here, and `dep.name` is another replacement for
`dep.key` which is not consistent with the others.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1317#pullrequestreview-493449129___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] pythondistdeps: Switch to importlib.metadata (#1317)
> Okay, this new push solves all but one of the test failures, which has the > script failing to parse the requires.txt for pyreq2rpm.tests since it > contains comments. Ah, I was glad that pkg_resources allowed those comments for easier orientation, but we can remove them if we must. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1317#issuecomment-68048___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] pythondistdeps: Switch to importlib.metadata (#1317)
> Any updates on the test suite investigation? Is there anything I can do to > help? @s-t-e-v-e-n-k Apologies, I got buried under different priorities. I'll try to get this in a few days. If you'd like to see on your own, the test suite for `pythondistdeps.py` is currently only in our Fedora repo here: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-rpm-generators/blob/master/f/tests (file `test_scripts_pythondistdeps.py` and folder `data/scripts_pythondistdeps`). Apologies for the location, the test suite was rejected here in the RPM repo for complexity. A new upstream repo for Python RPM scripts is planned (but that hasn't been created yet), so I'll be adding it there when possible. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1317#issuecomment-672061507___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] pythondistdeps: Switch to importlib.metadata (#1317)
There are test failures, but mainly do to different capitalization of names. Plus I haven't been able to run the comparison test metadata for some reason. I'll take a deeper look. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1317#issuecomment-662924340___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] pythondistdeps.py: Adapt Python version marker workaround for setuptools 42+ (#1308)
Looks good to me! -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1308#issuecomment-656673366___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Fix python(abi) requires generator, it picked files from almost good directories (#1272)
The change looks good to me. And we've been using this in RHEL for a while with good results. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1272#issuecomment-649454084___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add _without_check macro (#1256)
> I think this should set _with_check unless _without_check is defined already. > Basically to have `%bcond_without check` by default without having to put it > in all spec files. But still need to make sure that somebody defines > `%bcond_without check`, this code won't override it. That would be absolutely perfect, if there's a way to do it. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1256#issuecomment-640515842___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add _without_check macro (#1256)
I would like to avoid `nocheck`, because the common way to conditinalize would
be `%if %{without nocheck}` and that's just confusing to read.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1256#issuecomment-640514577___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: add way to set macro for --nocheck in rpmbuild (#316)
+1 this would be a great way to standardize on disabling tests! -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/316#issuecomment-639545601___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RPM generators errors are ignored (#1183)
> There are 3 things I'd like to see fixed: > > * the traceback should say: `Cannot process Python package version: 0+unknown` > * the build should abort on errors > * the version is [actually > valid](https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0440/#local-version-identifiers) First and last issue have been fixed in https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1242. What remains is that the build should abort on errors. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1183#issuecomment-637692530___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: split language specifics out of rpm core (#1199)
And are you planning to include the relevant scripts from these different repos into the releases of rpm? -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1199#issuecomment-634525298___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] scripts/pythondistdeps: Various updates and fixes (no test suite) (#1242)
Thank you too, @pmatilai! -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1242#issuecomment-634522612___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] scripts/pythondistdeps: Various updates and fixes (no test suite) (#1242)
> This pull request **introduces 1 alert** when merging > [592a6d5](https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/commit/592a6d5980010c63eb76c31ddd8954fba9cbaa92) > into > [8734c1b](https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/commit/8734c1b97e39e3c7d3ac8396c4d6a2733852545c) > - [view on > LGTM.com](https://lgtm.com/projects/g/rpm-software-management/rpm/rev/pr-b6979aa46105339f8a0843eae399433dc33d6444) > > **new alerts:** > > * 1 for Module is imported more than once It's a lazy import so that if it's not needed, it doesn't slow down the execution. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1242#issuecomment-634119166___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] scripts/pythondistdeps: New test suite and various updates and fixes (#1195)
I have modified the commits to take out the test suite and opened it as a new PR https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1242. Am therefore closing this PR in favour of the new one. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1195#issuecomment-634114538___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] scripts/pythondistdeps: New test suite and various updates and fixes (#1195)
Closed #1195. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1195#event-3374229415___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] scripts/pythondistdeps: Various updates and fixes (no test suite) (#1242)
This is a modification of PR https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1195, where I've deleted all mentions of the test suite. CC @pmatilai, @Conan-Kudo, @ffesti, @hroncok You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1242 -- Commit Summary -- * scripts/pythondistdeps: Also provide pythonXdist() with PEP 503 normalized names * scripts/pythondistdeps: "Fix" support of environment markers * scripts/pythondistdeps: Notes from an attempted rewrite to importlib.metadata * scripts/pythondistdeps: Sort generated provides/requires * scripts/pythondistdeps: Add option to generate major-version provides only for specified Python versions * scripts/pythondistdeps: Implement --normalized-name-* options * scripts/pythondistdeps: Do anything only when called as a main script * scripts/pythondistdeps: Version handling exception with better information * scripts/pythondistdeps: Modify handling of dev versions -- File Changes -- M scripts/pythondistdeps.py (466) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1242.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1242.diff -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1242 ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] scripts/pythondistdeps: New test suite and various updates and fixes (#1195)
> Being an autotools project has little to do with it. Rpm's test-suite looks > like voodoo because of the fakechroot integration, but that aside the > autotest cases are nothing but shell script snippets followed by expected > stdin/stderr + return code. What you do in that shell script space is totally > up to you, and you can add arbitrary helper/wrappers to suit purpose. Our > test-suite actually has wrappers to allow eg native Python code directly in > the tests, take a look at > https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/blob/master/tests/rpmpython.at > and > https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/blob/master/tests/rpmvercmp.at > sometime. So if we integrated the pythondistdeps test suite into the RPM test suite, you would be ok with merging it as well? The test suite would need to remain written in pytest of course, but from what you say, I can figure out to how to integrate a bash snippet that runs it. Because we (at least I) are not interested in creating a new upstream for pythondistdeps.py, so I would probably end up creating a repo only for the test suite, which is not great. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1195#issuecomment-633945967___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] scripts/pythondistdeps: New test suite and various updates and fixes (#1195)
Ok, sounds good. I'll separate out the test suite. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1195#issuecomment-633908867___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] scripts/pythondistdeps: New test suite and various updates and fixes (#1195)
I would like to work on some more changes, for example to handle "extras", but I'm not sure it's a good idea before this is merged. CC @Conan-Kudo, @pmatilai, @ffesti -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1195#issuecomment-631572000___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] scripts/pythondistdeps: New test suite and various updates and fixes (#1195)
These proposed changes have been merged to Fedora rawhide: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-rpm-generators/pull-request/15 -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1195#issuecomment-623426212___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Discussion: splitting language specifics out of rpm core (#1199)
> That's what I'm been mulling over here. Pulling stuff from multiple places > does complicate release-cutting considerably though (which tends to be hard > enough as it is), and will mean that bugs will get reported on rpm, but the > code will be someplace else, which I suspect would be a frustrating situation > for all involved. So I don't think that will work as such, but maybe there's > something else in that direction. I gotta say I'm sceptical that we'll find a better solution than keeping the scripts in rpm. However, the bugs being reported wrong could be solved by some more capable issue/bug-tracking software. For example a Bugzilla, where a bug can be easily reassigned to a different component (say `scripts/pythondistdeps`) that is administered by a different group of people. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1199#issuecomment-623424253___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] scripts/pythondistdeps: New test suite and various updates and fixes (#1195)
I've merged the first fixup. Leaving the second one pending depending on whether we decide to merge pythondistdeps here or split off to a new package. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1195#issuecomment-621351551___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] scripts/pythondistdeps: New test suite and various updates and fixes (#1195)
While the [discussion about possibly moving pythondistdeps to a different repo](https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1199) goes on: Any technical issues or concerns with the PR? -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1195#issuecomment-621108332___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Discussion: splitting language specifics out of rpm core (#1199)
I can see some benefits of having some standalone domain-specific repos, like a repo for Python scripts. However, I think Python is one of the special cases, splitting out all the scripts would seem to me an overkill. And if we split only some and leave the rest in rpm, it's more mess than we started with. On the other hand, I don't really see the benefits of using rpm-extras. It has the problems of not being in the rpm repo with no benefits of the standalone repos. So overall, I acknowledge the problems, but to me the proposed cures are worse than the disease (to use a popular turn of phrase). -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1199#issuecomment-620630859___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] scripts/pythondistdeps: New test suite and various updates and fixes (#1195)
@torsava commented on this pull request. > @@ -11,6 +11,10 @@ # RPM python dependency generator, using .egg-info/.egg-link/.dist-info data # +# Please know: +# - Notes from an attempted rewrite from pkg_resources to importlib.metadata in +# 2020 can be found in the message of the commit that added this line. > I see this by a wrong comment, but +1. What do you mean by that? -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1195#discussion_r415943934___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] scripts/pythondistdeps: New test suite and various updates and fixes (#1195)
@torsava commented on this pull request. > @@ -11,6 +11,10 @@ # RPM python dependency generator, using .egg-info/.egg-link/.dist-info data # +# Please know: +# - Notes from an attempted rewrite from pkg_resources to importlib.metadata in +# 2020 can be found in the message of the commit that added this line. @Conan-Kudo @hroncok WDYT? -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1195#discussion_r415926110___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] scripts/pythondistdeps: New test suite and various updates and fixes (#1195)
> Any new sources need to be EXTRA_DIST in Makefile.am's. I've added the checked-in files to the `EXTRA_DIST` in the fixup commit. I didn't add the automatically-downloaded metadata, as the test script will automatically fetch them if missing. If it's desirable to have them inside EXTRA_DIST as well, let me know. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1195#issuecomment-620050790___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] scripts/pythondistdeps: New test suite and various updates and fixes (#1195)
@torsava pushed 1 commit. e7cc87a083366439c0450c720ed36475b09d fixup! scripts/pythondistdeps: Add the tests to the readme and makefile -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. View it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1195/files/96be70abdb8f5b7633fb41829a8b5d496a466e03..e7cc87a083366439c0450c720ed36475b09d ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] scripts/pythondistdeps: New test suite and various updates and fixes (#1195)
@torsava commented on this pull request. > @@ -11,6 +11,10 @@ # RPM python dependency generator, using .egg-info/.egg-link/.dist-info data # +# Please know: +# - Notes from an attempted rewrite from pkg_resources to importlib.metadata in +# 2020 can be found in the message of the commit that added this line. Implemented to support both ways, see the latest fixup commit. And I've added tests for these cases: --provides --majorver-provides-versions 3.9 --majorver-provides-versions 2.7 --provides --majorver-provides-versions 3.9,2.7 --provides --majorver-provides-versions 3.9,2.7 --majorver-provides-versions 3.10 --provides --majorver-provides-versions 3.9 -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1195#discussion_r415748782___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] scripts/pythondistdeps: New test suite and various updates and fixes (#1195)
@torsava pushed 1 commit. 96be70abdb8f5b7633fb41829a8b5d496a466e03 fixup! scripts/pythondistdeps: Add option to generate major-version provides only for specified Python versions -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. View it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1195/files/dbc365b59207f4b00624241ae25542dd3f0a83cd..96be70abdb8f5b7633fb41829a8b5d496a466e03 ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] scripts/pythondistdeps: New test suite and various updates and fixes (#1195)
@torsava commented on this pull request.
> +
+
+if __name__ == "__main__":
+"""To allow this script to be importable (and its classes/functions
+ reused), actions are performed only when run as a main script."""
+
+parser = argparse.ArgumentParser(prog=argv[0])
+group = parser.add_mutually_exclusive_group(required=True)
+group.add_argument('-P', '--provides', action='store_true', help='Print
Provides')
+group.add_argument('-R', '--requires', action='store_true', help='Print
Requires')
+group.add_argument('-r', '--recommends', action='store_true', help='Print
Recommends')
+group.add_argument('-C', '--conflicts', action='store_true', help='Print
Conflicts')
+group.add_argument('-E', '--extras', action='store_true', help='Print
Extras')
+group_majorver = parser.add_mutually_exclusive_group()
+group_majorver.add_argument('-M', '--majorver-provides',
action='store_true', help='Print extra Provides with Python major version only')
+group_majorver.add_argument('--majorver-provides-versions', action='store',
> I'm mostly thinking of potential field parsing bugs. I'm thinking of if
> people call it twice with two comma separated lists. I don't know if we
> really want to make that case possible...
The reason I'm suggesting it is that `--majorver-provides-versions` doesn't
have a short form (and it's so specific that I don't think it should), and it
would result in very long calls, e.g. in Fedora we would need:
--provides --majorver-provides-versions 2.7 --majorver-provides-versions
3.8 --normalized-names-format pep503 --normalized-names-provide-both
I can actually make a test for all the possible ways to call
`--majorver-provides-versions` so it should be safe to implement it both ways.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1195#discussion_r415696889___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] scripts/pythondistdeps: New test suite and various updates and fixes (#1195)
> Any new sources need to be EXTRA_DIST in Makefile.am's. For a moment I was > puzzling as to how come this is passing dist-check when the added sources are > missing in the release tarball, but then realized the added tests are not > getting run in _our_ test-suite. Which to me kinda steps over a certain line. That is not on purpose, I would love if these tests were also run as part of the upstream test-suite. I thought about hooking it into `make check`. I didn't do it for 2 reasons: 1. These tests require new dependencies, and I wasn't sure if you would want to tie the rpm test suite to the pythondistdeps testing dependencies. This way there's a specific way to run the pythondistdeps test (and perhaps other scripts/ tests later) using `make check-scripts` that can be just added to the CI bot if desired. 2. The makefile machinery for `make test` is a bit too confusing to me to easily add to. However, a separate repo would also work. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1195#issuecomment-619883458___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] scripts/pythondistdeps: New test suite and various updates and fixes (#1195)
@torsava commented on this pull request.
> +
+
+if __name__ == "__main__":
+"""To allow this script to be importable (and its classes/functions
+ reused), actions are performed only when run as a main script."""
+
+parser = argparse.ArgumentParser(prog=argv[0])
+group = parser.add_mutually_exclusive_group(required=True)
+group.add_argument('-P', '--provides', action='store_true', help='Print
Provides')
+group.add_argument('-R', '--requires', action='store_true', help='Print
Requires')
+group.add_argument('-r', '--recommends', action='store_true', help='Print
Recommends')
+group.add_argument('-C', '--conflicts', action='store_true', help='Print
Conflicts')
+group.add_argument('-E', '--extras', action='store_true', help='Print
Extras')
+group_majorver = parser.add_mutually_exclusive_group()
+group_majorver.add_argument('-M', '--majorver-provides',
action='store_true', help='Print extra Provides with Python major version only')
+group_majorver.add_argument('--majorver-provides-versions', action='store',
`append` shouldn't be a problem. `extend` however, swallows unlimited number of
arguments, which could interfere with positional arguments, so I'd rather avoid
it. How about using `append` and also keeping the option for comma-separated
entries?
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1195#discussion_r415683331___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] scripts/pythondistdeps: New test suite and various updates and fixes (#1195)
> **new alerts:** > > * 1 for Module is imported more than once It's a lazy import so that if it's not needed, it doesn't slow down the execution. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1195#issuecomment-619013601___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] scripts/pythondistdeps: New test suite and various updates and fixes (#1195)
Please do a review commit-by-commit. I changed indentation of a large part of the code, so the overall diff is hard to read. You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1195 -- Commit Summary -- * scripts/pythondistdeps: Also provide pythonXdist() with PEP 503 normalized names * scripts/pythondistdeps: "Fix" support of environment markers * scripts/pythondistdeps: Notes from an attempted rewrite to importlib.metadata * scripts/pythondistdeps: Add option to generate major-version provides only for specified Python versions * scripts/pythondistdeps: Implement --normalized-name-* options * scripts/pythondistdeps: Add tests * scripts/pythondistdeps: Do anything only when called as a main script * scripts/pythondistdeps: Version handling exception with better information * scripts/pythondistdeps: Add the tests to the readme and makefile * scripts/pythondistdeps: Modify handling of dev versions -- File Changes -- M .gitignore (1) M scripts/pythondistdeps.py (463) M tests/Makefile.am (4) M tests/README (22) A tests/data/scripts_pythondistdeps/pyreq2rpm.tests-2020.04.07.024dab0-py3.9.egg-info/PKG-INFO (21) A tests/data/scripts_pythondistdeps/pyreq2rpm.tests-2020.04.07.024dab0-py3.9.egg-info/requires.txt (102) A tests/data/scripts_pythondistdeps/test-data.yaml (1174) A tests/data/scripts_pythondistdeps/test-requires.yaml (97) A tests/test_scripts_pythondistdeps.py (242) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1195.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1195.diff -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1195 ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RPM generators errors are ignored (#1183)
> @torsava OK, let's wait for the next unexpected error. But wrapping > everything in try-except and failing with useful error message is not a bad > idea. Ok, I'll add it to my PR. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1183#issuecomment-616518564___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RPM generators errors are ignored (#1183)
> the exception when the conversion fails is not telling anything useful As this was an unexpected error, we don't know at what point in the code the next unexpected error would strike. So the way I see it we would have to wrap the whole machinery in `try..except` which isn't great, or do you propose a different solution, @hroncok ? -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1183#issuecomment-616507483___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Python dist RPM generators errors are silently ignored + 0 version fail (#1183)
Addressed here: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1184 -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1183#issuecomment-616497780___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] scripts/pythondistdeps: Switch to argparse (#1181)
This very much breaks my pull request I'm preparing — it seems that once you start working on pythondistdeps, everyone gets notification about it and starts working on it too :) — but it's beautiful and I'm all for it! -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1181#issuecomment-614615287___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] scripts/pythondistdeps: Improved python version and operator handling. (#1015)
@torsava approved this pull request. Code looks good, tests are passing. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1015#pullrequestreview-391203820___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] scripts/pythondistdeps: Improved python version and operator handling. (#1015)
> I've pushed a change that should resolve the issues with trailing .0 versions. And now all tests pass! +1 -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1015#issuecomment-611808976___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] scripts/pythondistdeps: Improved python version and operator handling. (#1015)
@gordonmessmer As for my tests, I'm preparing a few changes to pythondistdeps.py, so I've added tests as well. The PR is still WIP. https://github.com/torsava/rpm/pull/1 -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1015#issuecomment-611623657___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] scripts/pythondistdeps: Improved python version and operator handling. (#1015)
> This change incorporates code from > https://github.com/gordonmessmer/pyreq2rpm/ which has a test suite of its own. That's exactly where I took my test data. I have tested your PR and 84 out of 86 tests passed! These are the only 2 issues: 1. Input: foobar4~=2.0 Expected output: (python3.7dist(foobar4) >= 2 with python3.7dist(foobar4) < 3) Actual output: Invalid requirement: python3.7dist(foobar4) ~= 2 [crashes pythondistdeps] 2. Input: foobar1~=2.4.8.0 Expected output: (python3.7dist(foobar1) >= 2.4.8 with python3.7dist(foobar1) < 2.4.9) Actual output: (python3.7dist(foobar1) >= 2.4.8 with python3.7dist(foobar1) < 2.5) However, you did not introduce these issues, the improper handling of a trailing ".0" in some cases was already present in the original version. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1015#issuecomment-611614414___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] scripts/pythondistdeps: Improved python version and operator handling. (#1015)
> It would be nice to have the tests for these... But from the first glance > this looks good to me. I'm actually writing a test suite for `scripts/pythondistdeps`, I'll report soon with the results. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1015#issuecomment-611481865___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Syntax sugar for bconds with inherited defaults (#941)
Brainstorming: * bcond_default_same + bcond_default_opposite -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/941#issuecomment-555008238___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Syntax sugar for bconds with inherited defaults (#941)
I would find it useful as well. However, we should really consider the naming, as bconds are already confusing enough, this could become completely unreadable to people not-in-the-know. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/941#issuecomment-55487___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Change the shebang of pythondistdeps.py to Python 3 (#212)
So seeing as no one has the resources to guide the larger patch, then unless you find the simple shebang change acceptable, I suggest we close the issue. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/212#issuecomment-301459911___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Change the shebang of pythondistdeps.py to Python 3 (#212)
So, to conclude the discussion: I don't really have the know-how and time to push through the more complicated change that @proyvind proposed. Would you be interested in leading that, @proyvind ? I would help where I can. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/212#issuecomment-300476838___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Change the shebang of pythondistdeps.py to Python 3 (#212)
> As distros completes their migration to python 3 and no python 2 package > installed on system, any py3k compatible script from packages in distro using > /usr/bin/python as shebang will be left broken, for which there surely are > quite a few. That's exactly what you want and why Fedora, RHEL, openSUSE and Mageia follow upstream recommendation in PEP 394. This way you'll know about scripts that aren't ported yet and you can fix them. Otherwise you would be running old Python 2 scripts on Python 3 which might run fine in 99% of cases and fail only in weird corner cases. And that's a huge pain to debug as you know. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/212#issuecomment-299409590___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Change the shebang of pythondistdeps.py to Python 3 (#212)
> Welcome back to 2017, Mandriva is dead ;) Ah, that explains it :) > Actually, in Fedora we should patch that to system-python.. Someone tried changing the shebang patch to `system-python`, but it had to be reverted back to Python 3 because the `pythondistdeps` needs `setuptools`, which `system-python` does not support. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/212#issuecomment-299243649___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Change the shebang of pythondistdeps.py to Python 3 (#212)
> First of all, while PEP 394 recommends this, it's not what's common practice > amongst distros, where Arch not even being a RPM based distro makes it less > relevant. > > I know of no rpm based distros where /usr/bin/python isn't pointing to the > default python interpreter binary version. I've just checked and the following RPM-based distros are keeping with the upstream recommendation of keeping `/usr/bin/python` always pointing to Python 2 (and if Python 2 isn't installed then`/usr/bin/python` doesn't exist): * Fedora * RHEL * openSUSE * Mandriva (though here the container I found and tested was a bit old) I would argue that's a solid chunk of the RPM-based distros. > However, if you really think this is a necessity (where forcing distros still > using python2 to patch the shebang themself would be considered less > acceptable than not adhering to PEP 394), Right now the above distros are being forced to patch it. I think the burden of a patch should lie with the Python 2–only distros nowadays, this close to Python 2 EOL. > the patch betlow would be the more proper way to achieve your goal. > This one also ensures that this $PYTHON is used for both %__python and the > python bindings as well. The patch looks interesting, though I'm not nearly experienced enough with the RPM code base to vet it. My only suggestion would be to set the default to `/usr/bin/python3`. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/212#issuecomment-299224600___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Change the shebang of pythondistdeps.py to Python 3 (#212)
> This makes no sense, /usr/bin/python is usually the linked to the binary of > the default python version in use on distros, so hardcoding the version makes > no sense. That is a common misconception. While some distros went ahead and switched `/usr/bin/python` to Python 3, most notably Arch Linux, most are keeping it pointing to Python 2 and will continue to do so at least until Python 2 EOL in 2020. Upstream Python issued a recommendation to that effect as well: [PEP 394 -- The "python" Command on Unix-Like Systems](https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0394/#abstract) So while most distros that will be using the latest RPM already switched to Python 3 being default, the binary `/usr/bin/python` still points to Python 2. That means that most distros will need to patch this shebang to `/usr/bin/python3` before deploying. I propose that we switch the shebang to explicitly Python 3 by default. There possibly might be some distros that will be using the latest RPM version but still haven't switched to Python 3 being default (and they will need to patch this shebang back to Python 2), but I'd wager it will be a minuscule number compared to Python 3–default distros. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/212#issuecomment-299131961___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Change the shebang of pythondistdeps.py to Python 3 (#212)
The `pythondistdeps.py` file is still carrying a Python 2 shebang (`/usr/bin/python`). In Fedora we already patch it to Python 3, so I'm proposing to make the same change in upstream as well. Python 2 is EOL in 2 years and 11 months. You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/212 -- Commit Summary -- * Change the shebang of pythondistdeps.py to Python 3 -- File Changes -- M scripts/pythondistdeps.py (2) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/212.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/212.diff -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/212 ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Fix pythondistdeps.py --provides for Python wheels (#154)
Thank *you!* -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/154#issuecomment-280033726___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Fix pythondistdeps.py --provides for Python wheels (#154)
torsava commented on this pull request.
> if not dist.py_version:
-warn("Version for {!r} has not been found".format(dist),
RuntimeWarning)
-continue
+# Try to parse the Python version from the path the metadata
+# resides at (e.g. /usr/lib/pythonX.Y/site-packages/...)
+import re
+res = re.search("/python(?P\d+\.\d)/", path_item)
Indeed I did, it works. Raw string is great if you want to use known escape
codes verbatim (\n, \r and the like), here it's superfluous. But it's a good
practice so I added it now.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/154___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Fix pythondistdeps.py --provides for Python wheels (#154)
I've changed it to `\d+\.\d` so we don't get a Python Y2K equivalent. :) -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/154#issuecomment-279997276___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Fix pythondistdeps.py --provides for Python wheels (#154)
torsava commented on this pull request.
> if not dist.py_version:
-warn("Version for {!r} has not been found".format(dist),
RuntimeWarning)
-continue
+# Try to parse the Python version from the path the metadata
+# resides at (e.g. /usr/lib/pythonX.Y/site-packages/...)
+import re
+res = re.search("/python(?P[0-9.]{3})/", path_item)
Absolutely!
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/154___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Fix pythondistdeps.py --provides for Python wheels (#154)
As Python wheels do not contain targetted Python version in the directory/file name of their metadata like Python eggs do, and since the Python version is not contained in the metadata either, it is necessary to get it from elsewhere. Here it is parsed from the path the metadata resides at (e.g. /usr/lib/pythonX.Y/site-packages/...) For more information, [bugzilla report for Fedora](https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1421776). You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/154 -- Commit Summary -- * Fix pythondistdeps.py --provides for Python wheels -- File Changes -- M scripts/pythondistdeps.py (13) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/154.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/154.diff -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/154 ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
