On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 12:35:32PM +0100, Karolina Surma wrote: > On 11/15/22 08:37, Mattia Verga via devel wrote: > > Il 15/11/22 00:23, Neal Gompa ha scritto: > >> On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 6:03 PM Kevin Kofler via devel > >> <devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> So let me sum up: > >>> > >>>> Some Python building backends, eg. setuptools, explicitly allow > >>>> creating package with version `0.0.0` when the version used by a > >>>> project is not known. This was > >>>> [https://github.com/pypa/setuptools/issues/2329 discussed upstream] > >>>> with conclusion that it's an intended behavior. > >>> Upstream says that it is intended that packages are able to set their > >>> version to 0 or 0.0.0, but… > >>> > >>>> Based on discussion on python-devel mailing list there will be no way > >>>> to opt out from this change. There will be no possibility to package a > >>>> Python package with version `0`. > >>> … your proposed Change will fail those packages' build with no opt-out!? You > >>> cannot be serious! > >>> > >>> (Though actually, would %global __provides_exclude_from … together with a > >>> manual Provides: python3dist(…) = 0 not work?) > >>> > >>> A clear -1 to this Change as proposed. > >>> > >>>> We've never encountered a situation when packaging the version `0` was > >>>> the package maintainers intention. > >>> What if it is the *upstream* maintainer's intention? Are we now dictating > >>> versioning schemes on upstream projects, disallowing version numbers that > >>> upstream setuptools explicitly considers valid? > >>> > >> Unfortunately, I have to agree here. Nobody said we should be > >> dictating the versions for people. PEP-440 does not even make 0 > >> version illegal, so this is unnecessarily punishing. > >> > > IMO, the policy is right, it just have to allow to opt out, so that the > > maintainer is informed that **there could be** something wrong with the > > package metadata / build process. Maybe an opt-out + file a ticket in BZ > > to have track of the opt out, just like the ExcludeArch is the right > > approach. > > > > Mattia > > > > Hello, > > The standard invocation of the Python dependency generator will be > changed to always run with option like `--fail-if-version-zero`. (This > is the subject of the current proposal.) > > Based on your concerns, an opt out mechanism would be added: > If you wanted to bypass the option, you could define a macro in the > specfile, eg. > `%{!?__python_dist_allow_version_zero:--fail-if-version-zero}` > > This would allow to build RPMs without bothering with versions. Also, if > it's upstream's decision to use version 0, that would be the way to go. > In Fedora this would give us an insight into how often this is needed. > > What do you think of enhancing the proposal this way? This would provide the opt-out that was requested. But it's also very specific to a problem that is mostly theoretical. Maybe instead add %__python_dist_extra_flags that would contain '--fail-if-version-zero' by default. That would also provide an opt-out, but allow other currently unforeseen uses. Zbyszek _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
