Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476600 --- Comment #7 from Mads Kiilerich <mads@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-10-29 20:49:31 EDT --- >> python-BTrees.i586: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package >> /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/BTrees/_IOBTree.c >> python-BTrees.i586: E: non-standard-executable-perm >> /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/BTrees/_OIBTree.so 0775 >> python-persistent.i586: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package >> /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/persistent/cPersistence.h >> python-ZODB3.i586: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package >> /usr/include/python2.6/ZODB3/cPersistence.h > > Yes, after I replied I remembered that I had forgotten to deal with these. My > next package will simply remove these files from the install, unless you have a > better suggestion. I guess that depends on what upstreams purpose with the files is? Are they installed on purpose or is it an oversight? FWIW I can't imagine any reasons why .c files should be included in any package. Theoretically it could perhaps make sense to expose the C code as a C library and put the .h files in a -devel package, but I don't think that is upstreams intention. >> Have you considered putting sub-modules somewhere else than in the global >> namespace instead of creating sub-packages? If it was an executable it could be >> put in /usr/share (like for example rpmlint does), but in this case I guess it >> could be below /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ZODB? What is upstreams >> opinion? (My past experience with Zope is that they have their own strong >> sub-community and don't try that hard to fit into system packaging, but instead >> recommends building a python from source and not sharing it with anything >> else.) > > I'm not familiar with this; I think it would involve (at least) modifying all > the ZODB sources to look for these packages in a different place (or run any > program using ZODB with a PYTHONPATH including whatever subdirectory we > choose). It _could_ be done in the ZODB module simply by inserting the right path in sys.path before importing - or by manipulating sys.modules. But I don't know if I would propose doing it in a Fedora patch. I think we need input from upstream if they see it as one module or as 4 modules each on their own right. In either case it could be nice if they distributed it in a way which matched their intention. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review