[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: python packaging, egg-info file vs. directory



Thomas Moschny wrote:
2008/4/15, Toshio Kuratomi <a badger gmail com>:
 Maybe the Guidelines need rewording.  Can you point at something in the
Guidelines that could be improved to show that using setuptools to add eggs
in F7/F8 is optional?  (All packages must handle the egg files in F9+ and
they must handle eggs created by packages which use setuptools normally.
The optional part is when adding eggs to a package which doesn't provide
them on its own.)

Why do you consider it optional?

The point was, that software like Trac depends on eggs to find its
needed libraries. Creating them should therefore not be optional, even
for older fedora releases.

Does trac use this library? If not, then it should definitely be optional. eggs are only generated if 1) the upstream package uses setuptools or 2) python-2.5 is being used. For trac to depend on packages providing eggs that don't build with setuptools is limiting trac to python-2.5.

Our addition of setuptools to provide eggs when upstream does not use setuptools itself, is something of a kludge. We should not use it unless the packager deems it to provide useful value for the particular package they are working on.

Note: F-8's python-2.5 which disables egg generation in distutils is also a kludge. And one that turned out to have poor side effects. So the guidelines give us a method to workaround that deficiency. But when there's no problem (because nothing is depending on the egg-info in order to function) there's no reason to kludge around the kludge.

-Toshio

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]