[Fedora-packaging] Re: what policy for python egg files

[Axel Thimm]

On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 07:23:29PM +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 05:47:48PM +0000, David Lutterkort wrote:
> > On Sat, 2006-12-16 at 14:09 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 07:43:04PM -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> > > > >>>>> "TK" == Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger at gmail.com> writes:
> > > > 
> > > > TK> I think tibbs had the opposite viewpoint but I don't remember if
> > > > TK> we got to a point where he decided it didn't matter or we came to
> > > > TK> an agreement or just let it drop.
> > > > 
> > > > I guess the point is that I can't figure out what additional value it
> > > > adds, and in general it's bad to package up something that's
> > > > completely needless.
> > > 
> > > egg is a packaging method that is orthogonal to what we use. Leaving
> > > the eggs around may get users to start using egg-installation and get
> > > files on the system unregistered by rpm.
> > > 
> > > Or not? If the above is correct eggs should even be banned just as
> > > other non-native package formats are banned (debs or tarballs for
> > > example).
> > 
> > The crucial issue are the dependencies that right now have to stay
> > within each packaging format; if rpm's can't contain any egg (or gem or
> > whatnot) info, users will end up installing the same package twice, just
> > to fulfill dependencies completely within each packaging system.
> 
> Don't you have the same issue if you install the egg with -Z? If not,
> then the (egg-)package dependencies are obvioulsy spooled somewhere on
> disk for easy_install and friends to find.

Looks like all has been considered in advance by the egg folks:

> --single-version-externally-managed
>     This boolean option tells the install command to perform an "old
>     style" installation, with the addition of an .egg-info directory
>     so that the installed project will still have its metadata
>     available and operate normally. If you use this option, you must
>     also specify the --root or --record options (or both), because
>     otherwise you will have no way to identify and remove the
>     installed files.

> > It would be much more userfriendly if we laid the groundwork for other
> > packaging systems to depend on rpm-installed bits; that mostly means to
> > _allow_ inclusion of non-rpm packaging metadata in rpms.
> 
> If you like so, having "egg-provides" is fine, of course. Just like we
> have foo.pc, but don't keep the full tarball around.

The equivalent to *.pc files seem to be the .egg-info subdirs. So we
don't need to ship the egg file in addition within the rpm file, but
still feed the egg packaging system with information.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20061218/83578639/attachment.sig>