Matej Cepl wrote: > On 10.2.2012 18:09, 80 wrote: >> Python guidelines recommends that packagers installs python eggs using >> distutils (python setup.py install as recommended in guidelines) while >> pip use the same install method as easy_install (provided by >> setuptools/distribute). The former one install egg metadata as a file, >> the latter as a directory, that's not a packaging/rpm issue. > > a) I don't think the answer “Then don’t do it” is a good one. Some other > Fedora-packaged languages (Perl comes to mind) allow three levels (or > maybe even four) of installation of packages (in CPAN meaning of the > word), system-wide-RPM-packaged, system-wide-unpackaged (to > /usr/local/*), and per-user-in-$HOME. Not sure how it is with Ruby and > PHP, but I believe this should be a standard in all major > Fedora-packaged languages. > b) distutils v. setuptools conflict is just an unfortunate testimony of > immature bad state of the Python upstream packaging, but it seems to me > that generally Python world is moving towards setuptools. Shouldn't we > follow the suite and move towards setuptools as well? > c) If we want to have as many Python packages packaged in RPMs (the > terminology is going to kill me soon) do we have some pip2spec (in the > same manner as there is cpan2spec)? > > Best, > > Matěj > We will never have all python packages that users may want to try out packaged, nor should we want to. I will only package items for Fedora that I have used enough to convince myself that they are: 1. useful enough in general 2. likely to continue to be developed/maintained I always try out packages first via easy_install or pip (after checking they are not already available via yum). Yes, I could try things via virtualenv, but I'm just not in that habit - and I suspect many others are in the same boat. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
