python packaging, egg-info file vs. directory

Toshio Kuratomi a.badger at gmail.com
Tue Apr 15 15:39:27 UTC 2008


Joel Andres Granados wrote:
> Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>> Thomas Moschny wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> Recently encountered a problem with the python-demjson rpm I maintain:
>>> The demjson package does not use setuptools, so, in accordance with
>>> the python packaging guidelines, I used the trick of preloading
>>> setuptools prior to executing setup.py, for F7 and F8 only. This
>>> produces an egg-info directory, fine.
>>>
>>> Now, for F9, egg-info is generated automatically, but it turns out
>>> that this produces an egg-info file instead of an directory. This in
>>> turn causes problems when upgrading from F8 to F9, because rpm can't
>>> replace a dir with a file.
>>>
>>> Any advices on how to solve this?
>>>
>>
>> Do you have a reason to need eggs on F7 and F8?
> 
> Thats strange, I thought it was added because of policy as opposed to 
> reason.  Firstaidkit has no need for eggs, but the reviewer insisted on 
> adding to them.  FWI, firstaidkit chooses to handle the plugins with 
> rpm, which is a valid alternative to eggs.
> 
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.)

-Toshio

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20080415/75ab04c0/attachment.sig>


More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list