[Bug 476600] Review Request: python-ZODB3 - Zope Object Database: Object Database and Persistence

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476600





--- Comment #6 from Conrad Meyer <konrad at tylerc.org>  2009-10-29 17:29:21 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Any comments to rpmlint warnings like the following?
> 
> python-BTrees.i586: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
> /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/BTrees/_IOBTree.c
> python-BTrees.i586: E: non-standard-executable-perm
> /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/BTrees/_OIBTree.so 0775
> python-persistent.i586: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
> /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/persistent/cPersistence.h
> python-ZODB3.i586: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
> /usr/include/python2.6/ZODB3/cPersistence.h

Yes, after I replied I remembered that I had forgotten to deal with these. My
next package will simply remove these files from the install, unless you have a
better suggestion.

> Have you considered putting sub-modules somewhere else than in the global
> namespace instead of creating sub-packages? If it was an executable it could be
> put in /usr/share (like for example rpmlint does), but in this case I guess it
> could be below /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ZODB? What is upstreams
> opinion? (My past experience with Zope is that they have their own strong
> sub-community and don't try that hard to fit into system packaging, but instead
> recommends building a python from source and not sharing it with anything
> else.)

I'm not familiar with this; I think it would involve (at least) modifying all
the ZODB sources to look for these packages in a different place (or run any
program using ZODB with a PYTHONPATH including whatever subdirectory we
choose). My particular interest in Zope libraries is for SAGE
(http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/SciTech/SAGE).

> Shouldn't some of the subpackages require a specific version of the others?
> There must be a reason the modules are distributed in one tar file?

Quite possibly. I must apologize for the sloppy work, I was rushed for time
yesterday.

> Upstream project on pypi is ZODB3, and ZODB3 is also used in the tar name. But
> it provides the ZODB module, and it seems like upstream consistently refers to
> it as ZODB (or ZODB 3.9). Shouldn't the package be called python-ZODB instead?

This sounds reasonable.

New Spec/SRPM:
http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SPECS/python-ZODB.spec
http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SRPMS/python-ZODB-3.9.3-2.fc11.src.rpm

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.