On Thu, 2013-11-14 at 10:27 +0100, Dan Horák wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 08:56:22 +0000
> "Richard W.M. Jones" <rjones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > However this raises some questions:
> >
> > - Should this package explicitly BR redhat-rpm-config?
> >
> > - Should all Python packages explicitly BuildRequire
> > redhat-rpm-config?
> >
> > - Should this package not be packaging up the *.py[co] files?
> >
> > - Is this a bug in redhat-rpm-config/Python/RPM/Fedora?
> >
> > - Should I just ignore this because it builds fine in Koji?
Or maybe the other way around, do you have to explictly list the .pyc
and .pyo files in the %files manifest?
Could a slightly larger glob work around the problem?
For example, if right now you have:
%dir %{python_sitelib}/mymodule
%{python_sitelib}/mymodule/*.py
%{python_sitelib}/mymodule/*.pyc
%{python_sitelib}/mymodule/*.pyo
You could replace that by:
%{python_sitelib}/mymodule
The above would include the folder, the .py files, and (if they have
been built) the .py[co] files as well.
Is something like this not possible in your case?
> I think ignoring is fine, we should rather recommend to do "yum install
> @buildsys-build" before starting to work on Fedora packages
Or even fedora-packager, which has even more important stuff than
@buildsys-build.
--
Mathieu
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
