On 2015-10-29, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thursday, 29 October 2015 at 01:31, Christopher Meng wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 3:16 AM, Tom Hughes <tom@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> > On 28/10/15 19:12, Mike Bonnet wrote: >> >> >> >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires >> >> >> >> This is *not* required for pure Python packages, only for packages >> >> compiling native extensions: >> > >> > >> > Are you sure? Don't you need them for the RPM macros they contain? >> >> Not my first time hitting on missing macros just because lack of >> pythonN-devel, but if you just extract them from pythonN-devel to package >> similar to these packages below, I reckon that it should be acceptable: >> >> --- >> ghc-srpm-macros >> gnat-srpm-macros >> go-srpm-macros >> ocaml-srpm-macros >> perl-srpm-macros >> --- > > How about naming them: > rpm-build-ghc > rpm-build-gnat > rpm-build-go > rpm-build-ocaml > rpm-build-perl > rpm-build-python > and so on? > Difference between srpm-macros and devel macros is that srpm-macros macros are intended for building source RPM packages (hence the srpm in the name) without introducing any new dependencies into minimal build root. This is not obviously the case of devel packages. While simple rename is not against anything, the "build" name associates building binary RPM package which is not correct. However, I have to admit, that having a standard package name for macros needed for building non-native-extenstion (noarch) binary packages can be handy. Especially if major of packages do not need header files and compiler, so depending on devel package is superfluos overshot wasting resources. -- Petr -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
