[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Platform Python Changes (#302)

2017-08-14 Thread Miro Hrončok
Related to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Platform_Python_Stack The changes are "backwards compatible" - i.e. it does not break systems without Platform Python. (Except in a rare case when someone would install to /usr/lib(64)?/platform-pythonX.Y without having a Platform Python.) Not

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Platform Python Changes (#302)

2017-08-17 Thread Miro Hrončok
Thanks for clarification. -- 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/302#issuecomment-323019966___ Rpm-maint mailing list

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] scripts: add brp-mangle-shebangs (#344)

2017-11-03 Thread Miro Hrončok
JFYI (Python specific) https://github.com/fedora-python/python-rpm-porting/issues/24 -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Provide a way to opt out from automagic Python bytecompilation (#434)

2018-05-14 Thread Miro Hrončok
Passing `%{?__python}` was copied from Fedora. The script seems to expect it. I can pass `""` here instead, as the invocation differs in Fedora anyway. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Provide a way to opt out from automagic Python bytecompilation (#434)

2018-05-14 Thread Miro Hrončok
So I set `%_python_bytecompile_extra` to 1 as default. And the opt out is to undefine it, opt in is to set it to 1. Will do. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Provide a way to opt out from automagic Python bytecompilation (#434)

2018-05-10 Thread Miro Hrončok
We would like to proceed with the Fedora change and this here looks stalled. Should we maintain a downstream patch instead? @pmatilai Do you have a better suggestion for the name of the disable/enable macro? -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Provide a way to opt out from automagic Python bytecompilation (#434)

2018-05-10 Thread Miro Hrončok
@hroncok pushed 1 commit. d8a2025 fixup! Provide a way to opt out from automagic Python bytecompilation -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. View it on GitHub:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Provide a way to opt out from automagic Python bytecompilation (#434)

2018-05-22 Thread Miro Hrončok
Changed as requested. -- 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/434#issuecomment-390944663___ Rpm-maint mailing list

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Provide a way to opt out from automagic Python bytecompilation (#434)

2018-05-28 Thread Miro Hrončok
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/434#issuecomment-392505340___ Rpm-maint mailing list

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Provide a way to opt out from automagic Python bytecompilation (#434)

2018-04-30 Thread Miro Hrončok
And what is the proper fix? The second part being ditched? I worry that's too breaking. That's why we designed the Fedora change the way we did, keeping it backwards compatible while providing a way out. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Provide a way to opt out from automagic Python bytecompilation (#434)

2018-05-01 Thread Miro Hrončok
> Handing the script to either Python programmers or distro QA engineers is far > likelier to get timely fixes then in an upstream rpm release. Note that we are fine maintaining this inside rpm, as long as you hear our concerns. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Provide a way to opt out from automagic Python bytecompilation (#434)

2018-04-30 Thread Miro Hrončok
So, the conclusion is to remove brp-python-bytecompile from rpm and maintain our own? -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] scripts: add brp-mangle-shebangs (#344)

2018-01-10 Thread Miro Hrončok
Would there be an easy way here to say we want to convert python to python2? I.e. should we patch this downstream in Fedora, or... ? -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] scripts: add brp-mangle-shebangs (#344)

2018-01-10 Thread Miro Hrončok
Note that I would like to get this into Fedora before 28 mass rebuild. https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/redhat-rpm-config/pull-request/9 -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] scripts: add brp-mangle-shebangs (#344)

2018-01-10 Thread Miro Hrončok
OK, let's discuss it there, I've juts wanted to let other know, if they are interested. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] python-macro-helper should not have shebang and x flag (#387)

2018-01-30 Thread Miro Hrončok
Looking at 7ac3f07ac41a2760ed6dae65e63fe0b49aec6f6c the `%{_rpmconfigdir}/python-macro-helper` file is always invoked with `%{__python}` and thus doesn't need a shebang and an executable flag. Since `%{__python}` can be redefined, having a hardcoded `/usr/bin/python` shebang that is never

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] python-macro-helper should not have shebang and x flag (#387)

2018-01-31 Thread Miro Hrončok
Also, this makes the rpmb-build package in fedora require python2: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1538657 -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Should python(abi) be provided by the interpreter or something else? (#395)

2018-02-15 Thread Miro Hrončok
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/blob/b60a086213b5f0ffd68b445e51d205eb1ac64396/scripts/pythondistdeps.py#L129-L134 I believe this adds `python(abi) == 2.7` for Fedora's `python2-libs`, because it owns `/usr/lib64/python2.7/lib-dynload/Python-2.7.14-py2.7.egg-info`. However, it was

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Should python(abi) be provided by the interpreter or something else? (#395)

2018-02-18 Thread Miro Hrončok
Well then I suppose the code segment should be removed. (Or replaced with search for the executable, if `pythondeps.sh` provides generator should eventually die out.) -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Python generators: Use nonstandardlib for purelib definition (#483)

2018-07-28 Thread Miro Hrončok
```pycon $ python2.7 Python 2.7.15 (default, May 16 2018, 17:50:09) [GCC 8.1.1 20180502 (Red Hat 8.1.1-1)] on linux2 Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information. >>> from distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib >>> from sys import version >>>

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Python generators: Use nonstandardlib for purelib definition (#483)

2018-07-28 Thread Miro Hrončok
The purelib and platlib were both defined to /usr/lib64/python on 64bits systems. This is because: >>> get_python_lib(standard_lib=1, plat_specific=0) '/usr/lib64/python3.7' >>> get_python_lib(standard_lib=1, plat_specific=1) '/usr/lib64/python3.7' >>>

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Python generators: Use nonstandardlib for purelib definition (#483)

2018-07-28 Thread Miro Hrončok
One has site-packages and zero does not. Yet all standard library is in lib64, hence this results. Will check legacy Python as well. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] macros: make unversioned python macros not expand to empty (#469)

2018-08-27 Thread Miro Hrončok
How can I move this forward? -- 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/469#issuecomment-416191916___ Rpm-maint mailing

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] License of python-rpm-generators (#471)

2018-07-19 Thread Miro Hrončok
Hi, we have three files in Fedora's python-rpm-generators: * [python.attr](https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-rpm-generators/blob/master/f/python.attr) * [pythondeps.sh](https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-rpm-generators/blob/master/f/pythondeps.sh) *

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] brp-python-bytecompile: Run a pre-flight find before invoking $default_python (#383)

2018-01-23 Thread Miro Hrončok
hroncok commented on this pull request. > @@ -87,6 +87,10 @@ if [ ! -x "$default_python" ]; then exit 0 fi +# Figure out if there are files to be bytecompiled with the default_python at all +# this prevents unnecessary default_python invocation +find "$RPM_BUILD_ROOT" -type f -name

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] brp-python-bytecompile: Run a pre-flight find before invoking $default_python (#383)

2018-01-23 Thread Miro Hrončok
This added check figures out whether invoking `$default_python` is necessary and exits early if no files would be bytecompiled by the two blocks below. This prevent's invoking `$default_python` (i.e. `%{__python}` (i.e. most likely `/usr/bin/python`)) when not needed. Currently (before this

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] scripts: add brp-mangle-shebangs (#344)

2018-04-17 Thread Miro Hrončok
Thanks. -- 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/344#issuecomment-381957380___ Rpm-maint mailing list

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Provide a way to opt out from automagic Python bytecompilation (#434)

2018-04-24 Thread Miro Hrončok
The task is not "bytecompile it with a Python interpreter that won't fail". It is "bytecompile it with the Python interpreter that will be used to import it". -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Provide a way to opt out from automagic Python bytecompilation (#434)

2018-04-24 Thread Miro Hrončok
> Meanwhile, there is no reason I know of that an ordered list of python > interpreters in PATH (or in /usr/bin if you must) cannot be tested for > existence and use the first found interpreter to byte compile. The reason is that the packager knows what are those py files for. Is it a plugin

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Provide a way to opt out from automagic Python bytecompilation (#434)

2018-04-24 Thread Miro Hrončok
hroncok commented on this pull request. > %__brp_strip %{_rpmconfigdir}/brp-strip %{__strip} %__brp_strip_comment_note %{_rpmconfigdir}/brp-strip-comment-note %{__strip} %{__objdump} %__brp_strip_shared %{_rpmconfigdir}/brp-strip-shared %__brp_strip_static_archive

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Provide a way to opt out from automagic Python bytecompilation (#434)

2018-04-24 Thread Miro Hrončok
One can now use `%?disable_automagic_pybytecompile` to opt out from automagic Python bytecompilation outside of `/usr/lib(64)?/pythonX.Y`. One can also use `%?enable_automagic_pybytecompile` to explicitly opt in, even tough this is currently still the default. Automagic Python bytecompilation

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Provide a way to opt out from automagic Python bytecompilation (#434)

2018-04-24 Thread Miro Hrončok
> NAK, the name disable_automagic_pybytecompile strongly indicates that it > disables it *completely* but it does something entirely different. Well, it disables the automagic part. If you get better name, suggest one. > If byte-compilation outside python libdirs is too magic and error-prone, I

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Provide a way to opt out from automagic Python bytecompilation (#434)

2018-04-24 Thread Miro Hrončok
It is all explained in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/No_more_automagic_Python_bytecompilation#How_we_are_changing_it > For the time being, we **keep the old behavior working**, so the hundreds of > packages that implicitly rely on it do not break all at once. However, we > will not

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Provide a way to opt out from automagic Python bytecompilation (#434)

2018-04-24 Thread Miro Hrončok
* `disable_pybytecompile_outside_pythondir` * `disable_pybytecompile_arbitrary_locations` * ...? -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Provide a way to opt out from automagic Python bytecompilation (#434)

2018-04-24 Thread Miro Hrončok
This is not disabling python bytecompilation. This makes the packager in charge of what is compiled with what. I can hook in SELinux devs just to make sure. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Provide a way to opt out from automagic Python bytecompilation (#434)

2018-04-24 Thread Miro Hrončok
> Why not just add an additional test for an executable bit on a \*.py file > instead of attempting detection of within tree compilation? What does this has to do with executable bits? You need to bytecompile files that are imported, not the files that are executed. The problem with current

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: BuildRequires generator (#104)

2018-10-25 Thread Miro Hrončok
One thing that concerns me is that now when srpms require certain packages, this information is visible from the source repo. I can run repoquery to check that nothing requires what I intent to orphan etc. If we generate those, we should make sure the srpms we put in the source repo have the

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: BuildRequires generator (#104)

2018-10-25 Thread Miro Hrončok
Isn't that for stdout/stderr separation is for? All we need is to display the one that's not used for the reqs. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add support for sorting caret ('^') higher than base version (#88)

2018-11-15 Thread Miro Hrončok
Also, as for the reason this was closed: > looks like Fedora is going for a policy that works with the current version > compare ... I do not really see an immediate need for this Note that when creating Fedora policies and guidelines, the FPC is forced to make it work with the current version

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] macros: drop python macro (#508)

2018-11-21 Thread Miro Hrončok
What does "default python" even mean and why does RPM need to care? -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] macros: drop python macro (#508)

2018-11-21 Thread Miro Hrončok
I think that %__python should be configurable anything (that meets a certain API, so %python_sitearch etc. can work). However I don't think it needs a default. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] macros: drop python macro (#508)

2018-11-21 Thread Miro Hrončok
Yes, but add error handling to python_foo helpers (e.g. if I set %__python to /usr/bin/false or a not existing file). -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] macros: drop python macro (#508)

2018-11-21 Thread Miro Hrončok
This is very helpful for spec reuse. You can use python_helpres anywhere in the spec, but at one place, just define %__python as needed (e.g. /usr/bin/python on RHEL7, /usr/bin/python3 on Fedora, %{__python3} on RHEL8, /usr/bin/pypy in your custom repo...). -- You are receiving this because

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Python generators: Fails to add != dependency (#639)

2019-02-28 Thread Miro Hrončok
nbsphinx 0.4.2 has: ```python install_requires=[ 'docutils', 'jinja2', 'nbconvert!=5.4', 'traitlets', 'nbformat', 'sphinx>=1.6', ], ``` The resulting dependencies are: ``` python3.7dist(docutils) python3.7dist(jinja2)

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Python generators: Fails to add != dependency (#639)

2019-03-02 Thread Miro Hrončok
Yrs, nbconvert, edited. I don't think conflicts would be good, does the version equivalency work for e.g. 5.4.1? I'd need to check how != works in this case with pip. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Python generators: Fails to add != dependency (#639)

2019-03-02 Thread Miro Hrončok
Also with would not work here, but or would. -- 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/639#issuecomment-468954919___

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Python generators: Fails to add != dependency (#639)

2019-03-06 Thread Miro Hrončok
Ok, pip behavior: Latest nbconvert version now is 5.4.1. 5.4.5 exists as well. * `pip install 'nbconvert!=5.4'` installs 5.4.1 * `pip install 'nbconvert!=5.4.1'` installs 5.4.0 * `pip3 install 'nbconvert<5.4.1'` installs 5.4.0 * `pip3 install 'nbconvert<5.4.1,!=5.4'` installs 5.3.1 So for

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Python generators: Fails to add != dependency (#639)

2019-03-06 Thread Miro Hrončok
Or, the provides generator should chop any leading zeros. That is even better beccasue it would avoid stuff like this: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-flake8/blob/aa80b5f09c9aaf77a95c7b7f7cb81c368636af7b/f/python-flake8.spec#_59 -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Python generators: console_scripts entry points require setuptools (#666)

2019-04-16 Thread Miro Hrončok
Oh, I only noticed the PR number now :smiling_imp: -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: %generate_buildrequires should re-run until all dependencies are satisfied (#755)

2019-06-19 Thread Miro Hrončok
%generate_buildrequires currently only runs once. it should loop until no new depndencies are needed. To reproduce: ``` %generate_buildrequires echo package1 if rpm -q package1 &>/dev/null; then echo package2; fi ``` Actual result: ``` Executing(%generate_buildrequires): + umask 022 + cd

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: %generate_buildrequires should re-run until all dependencies are satisfied (#755)

2019-06-19 Thread Miro Hrončok
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/mock/issues/276 -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Python generators: Fails to add != dependency (#639)

2019-06-20 Thread Miro Hrončok
https://packaging.pypa.io/en/latest/utils/#packaging.utils.canonicalize_version -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Python generators: Fails to add != dependency (#639)

2019-06-20 Thread Miro Hrončok
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/757 -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Canonicalize Python versions and properly handle != spec (#757)

2019-06-20 Thread Miro Hrončok
Note that this does still not properly work with beta versions. 1.4.0b3, won't be canonicalized to 1.4b3. However, the beta versions etc. won't sort properly anyway. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] License of python-rpm-generators (#471)

2019-04-17 Thread Miro Hrončok
@Conan-Kudo @ignatenkobrain @soig @scop @proyvind ? -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Python generators: console_scripts entry points require setuptools (#666)

2019-04-16 Thread Miro Hrončok
hroncok commented on this pull request. > @@ -191,6 +191,11 @@ py_deps[name].append(spec) if not dep.specs: py_deps[name] = [] +# console_scripts/gui_scripts entry points need pkg_resources from setuptools +

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Python generators: Add setuptools dependency for console_script entry points (#664)

2019-04-16 Thread Miro Hrončok
Almost no upstream specifies setuptools in install_requires. I guess that it is pretty straight forward upstream that if you pip install stuff, you already got setuptools installed. However, [the console_scripts entry

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Python generators: Add setuptools dependency for console_script entry points (#664)

2019-04-16 Thread Miro Hrončok
Example metadata: ``` $ cat %{buildroot}%{python3_sitelib}/fedpkg-1.36-py3.7.egg-info/entry_points.txt [console_scripts] fedpkg = fedpkg.__main__:main fedpkg-stage = fedpkg.__main__:main ``` Other possibility: ``` $ grep EASY-INSTALL-ENTRY-SCRIPT %{buildroot}%{bindir}/* #

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Python generators: Add setuptools dependency for console_script entry points (#664)

2019-04-16 Thread Miro Hrončok
Yes, working on 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/issues/664#issuecomment-483582080___ Rpm-maint mailing list

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Python generators: console_scripts entry points require setuptools (#666)

2019-04-16 Thread Miro Hrončok
Fixes https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/664 You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/666 -- Commit Summary -- * Python generators: console_scripts entry points require setuptools -- File Changes

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Python generators: console_scripts entry points require setuptools (#666)

2019-04-16 Thread Miro Hrončok
hroncok commented on this pull request. > @@ -191,6 +191,11 @@ py_deps[name].append(spec) if not dep.specs: py_deps[name] = [] +# console_scripts/gui_scripts entry points need pkg_resources from setuptools +

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpmbuild output is garbled (#794)

2019-07-16 Thread Miro Hrončok
Another example: ``` Executing(%check): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.Ds3VBv + umask 022 + cd /builddir/build/BUILD + cd pip-19.1.1 + pytest_k='not completion and BUILDSTDERR: not test_pep517_and_build_options and BUILDSTDERR: not test_config_file_venv_option and BUILDSTDERR:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpmbuild output is garbled (#794)

2019-07-16 Thread Miro Hrončok
Disclaimer: I never build in local rpmbuild, so I have no idea if this is caused by mock or RPM. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpmbuild output is garbled (#794)

2019-07-16 Thread Miro Hrončok
I observed the behavior change on Fedora rawhide only. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpmbuild output is garbled (#794)

2019-07-16 Thread Miro Hrončok
This was python-pip (use the Fedora rawhide one). -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Restore strict order of build scriptlet stdout/stderr output (#794) (#818)

2019-08-16 Thread Miro Hrončok
Let there be Fedora rawhide scratchbuild with this patch applied: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=37069113 -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Restore strict order of build scriptlet stdout/stderr output (#794) (#818)

2019-08-16 Thread Miro Hrončok
Indeed this makes the problem away. I am not qualified enough to verify whether it is good approach or whether t breaks different use cases, but it fixes https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/794 Thank You. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] DynamicBuildRequires: error: Dependency tokens must begin with alpha-numeric, '_' or '/': [last line of spec] (#801)

2019-07-27 Thread Miro Hrončok
Here is a somewhat weird error with dynamic buildrequires on Fedora 31. The reproducer is a bit complicated, sorry about that. 1. Install mock that knows how to loop over DynamicBuildRequires - you can build it from here: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mock/pull-request/8 ([rawhide

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Syntax sugar for bconds with inherited defaults (#941)

2019-11-18 Thread Miro Hrončok
I often find myself writing code like this: ``` %bcond_with some_thing %if %{with some_thing} %bcond_with some_other_thing %else %bcond_without some_other_thing %endif ``` Or the other way around: ``` %bcond_with some_thing %if %{with some_thing} %bcond_without some_other_thing %else

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Syntax sugar for bconds with inherited defaults (#941)

2019-11-18 Thread Miro Hrončok
I agree. `%bcond_inherit` and `%bcond_antiinherit` are indeed not very good. Brainstorming some ideas: * bcond_default_as * bcond_default_like * bcond_like * bcond_as For the opposite relation, I'm unsure. Mayeb we can use something like ``` %bcond_like ! bootstrap ``` However I'm unsure

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Fix compatible-release, versions with dot-star, semantically versioned deps, and python version (#951)

2019-11-25 Thread Miro Hrončok
cc @encukou -- 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/951#issuecomment-558068003___ Rpm-maint mailing list

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Not all console_scripts entry points need pkg_resources from setuptools (#954)

2019-11-27 Thread Miro Hrončok
This is a followup after https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/664 Apparently, not all entry_points console_scripts have the pkg_resources import. It seems to me that packages installed via pip from a wheel have this: ``` #!/usr/bin/python3 # -*- coding: utf-8 -*- import re

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Generate dependency on setuptools if entrypoints are used (#555)

2019-11-27 Thread Miro Hrončok
fixed in https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/664 ? -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Not all console_scripts entry points need pkg_resources from setuptools (#954)

2019-11-28 Thread Miro Hrončok
It seems that dist-info => no pkg_resources, egg-info => pkg_resources is correct. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] error: Illegal char '*' (0x2a) in: 1.4.* does not stop the build (#881)

2019-10-07 Thread Miro Hrončok
Thanks. -- 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/881#issuecomment-539003243___ Rpm-maint mailing list

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Fix dynamic buildrequire error handling (#889)

2019-10-08 Thread Miro Hrončok
Oh. `%pyproject_buildrequires -r` creates a directory. Is that a problem? Should it remove it after? -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Fix dynamic buildrequire error handling (#889)

2019-10-08 Thread Miro Hrončok
I think that comes from the rm output as well, let me check. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Fix dynamic buildrequire error handling (#889)

2019-10-08 Thread Miro Hrončok
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pyproject-rpm-macros/pull-request/17 -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Fix dynamic buildrequire error handling (#889)

2019-10-08 Thread Miro Hrončok
It's not redirected to dev null, but stderr. The output on stderr is quite verbose on purpose. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Fix dynamic buildrequire error handling (#889)

2019-10-08 Thread Miro Hrončok
step 3 gave me: ``` error: Failed build dependencies: python3dist(pandas) is needed by python-pytest-harvest-1.7.1-1.fc32.noarch python3dist(pypandoc) is needed by python-pytest-harvest-1.7.1-1.fc32.noarch python3dist(pytest-runner) is needed by

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Fix dynamic buildrequire error handling (#889)

2019-10-08 Thread Miro Hrončok
step 4 gave me: ``` error: Failed build dependencies: python3dist(decopatch) is needed by python-pytest-harvest-1.7.1-1.fc32.noarch python3dist(makefun) >= 1.5 is needed by python-pytest-harvest-1.7.1-1.fc32.noarch Wrote:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Fix dynamic buildrequire error handling (#889)

2019-10-08 Thread Miro Hrončok
Repeated step 4 gave me the problem: ``` error: line 67: Dependency tokens must begin with alpha-numeric, '_' or '/': - Initial packaging error: line 67: Dependency tokens must begin with alpha-numeric, '_' or '/': - Initial packaging error: line 67: Dependency tokens must begin with

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Fix dynamic buildrequire error handling (#889)

2019-10-08 Thread Miro Hrončok
So I already see 1 bug of `%pyproject_buildrequires -r` -> it does `rm -rfv *.dist-info/` and the verbose output is on the standard ouput, not stderr. I can fix this. I don't understand where does `- Initial packaging` come form, it is the last line of the changelog. -- You are receiving

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Fix dynamic buildrequire error handling (#889)

2019-10-08 Thread Miro Hrončok
Could you please recheck with [pyproject-rpm-macros-0-7.fc32](https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/work/tasks/1439/38141439/pyproject-rpm-macros-0-7.fc32.noarch.rpm) or manually adding the minimal change of the macro file from [the

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Ability to have a file in %files via a command (macro) evaluated at buildtime (#894)

2019-10-10 Thread Miro Hrončok
I'd like to have a macro, that sees the files after `%install` is finished and can do stuff with the files in `%buildroot` and `$PWD`, and I like to use the macro in the `%files` section. Minimal (not so useful) example with a command: This works: ``` %files %(echo /foo) ``` This doesn't:

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] error: Illegal char '*' (0x2a) in: 1.4.* does not stop the build (#881)

2019-10-03 Thread Miro Hrončok
In Fedora rawhide with rpm 4.15.0-1, when a dependency generator generates invalid requires (e.g. `Requires: python3.8dist(wrapt) = 1.11.*`), there is an error in the log: ``` error: Illegal char '*' (0x2a) in: 1.4.* error: Illegal char '*' (0x2a) in: 1.11.* ``` But this does not stop the

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Ability to have a file in %files via a command (macro) evaluated at buildtime (#894)

2019-10-11 Thread Miro Hrončok
Roger that. I've tried :) -- 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/894#issuecomment-540996257___ Rpm-maint mailing list

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Ability to have a file in %files via a command (macro) evaluated at buildtime (#894)

2019-10-11 Thread Miro Hrončok
Closed #894. -- 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/894#event-2705577119___ Rpm-maint mailing list

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Ability to have a file in %files via a command (macro) evaluated at buildtime (#894)

2019-10-11 Thread Miro Hrončok
The use-case was to have a `%{pyproject_metadata}` macro like this: ``` %files -n python3-foo %{pyproject_metadata} %{python3_sitelib}/foo/ ``` The macro would: * find the built Python dist-info directory, parse the metadata from it, locate the License-File filed (not yet available) and

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] pythondistdeps attempts to do invalid rich Provides (rpm 4.15.1 with backported fixes from master) (#981)

2019-12-20 Thread Miro Hrončok
When the list contains just one item, the parenthesis should not be there, correct? -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] pythondistdeps attempts to do invalid rich Provides (rpm 4.15.1 with backported fixes from master) (#981)

2019-12-20 Thread Miro Hrončok
oh, this is for provides? -- 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/981#issuecomment-568048318___ Rpm-maint mailing list

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] scripts/pythondistdeps: Print Provides-Extra entries for Python packa… (#1014)

2020-02-09 Thread Miro Hrončok
I got an idea last night about how to handle this. I need to put it in writing and realize if it is indeed a working idea or not. Will open a ticket. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] scripts/pythondistdeps: Print Provides-Extra entries for Python packa… (#1014)

2020-02-09 Thread Miro Hrončok
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1061 -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Handle Python extras trough reverse requirements encoded in provides (#1061)

2020-02-09 Thread Miro Hrončok
In Python, we have a concept of [extras](https://packaging.python.org/specifications/core-metadata/#provides-extra-multiple-use) a way to specify an optional dependency with the ability to install the software with that dependency enabled trough the "extra" part of a name in square brackets.

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Handle Python extras trough reverse requirements encoded in provides (#1061)

2020-02-09 Thread Miro Hrončok
The idea is that we handle buildrequires and requires fully automatically, generating subpackages statically is a step back. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Handle Python extras trough reverse requirements encoded in provides (#1061)

2020-02-09 Thread Miro Hrončok
> attach dependencies to virtual provides I'm sorry, what do you mean by this? -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Handle Python extras trough reverse requirements encoded in provides (#1061)

2020-02-10 Thread Miro Hrončok
> if later, or just a little sooner: Don't bother. > if a bit sooner: Put it in pyproject macros as an implementation detail, but > document that it shouldn't be done manually. As much as possible, ensure it > can be easily switched to dynamic subpackages. > if much sooner (years): Go for it all

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Handle Python extras trough reverse requirements encoded in provides (#1061)

2020-02-10 Thread Miro Hrončok
I still have no idea about what we would do with the obsoleted subpackages. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Handle Python extras trough reverse requirements encoded in provides (#1061)

2020-02-10 Thread Miro Hrončok
Note that the subpackages approach has a problem if an extra goes away and it was installed on user machine. Obviously, if we loose extras that are still dependent on, any approach will generate broken dependencies; but with subpckages, any removed subpackages will need to be obsoleted, and

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Handle Python extras trough reverse requirements encoded in provides (#1061)

2020-02-10 Thread Miro Hrončok
@pmatilai Thanks for confirmation :unicorn: -- 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/1061#issuecomment-584109272___

  1   2   3   >