Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: python26 - Parallel-installable Python 2.6 for EPEL5 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=573151 Summary: Review Request: python26 - Parallel-installable Python 2.6 for EPEL5 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ReportedBy: dmalcolm@xxxxxxxxxx QAContact: extras-qa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx CC: notting@xxxxxxxxxx, fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Target Release: --- Spec URL: http://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/epel-packaging/python26.spec SRPM URL: http://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/epel-packaging/python26-2.6.4-21.el5.src.rpm Scratch build in Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2050097 rpmlint results: http://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/epel-packaging/rpmlint-results-for-task-2050103.txt Note: this is purely intended for the EPEL5 branch, not for Fedora Description: I'm interested in maintaining a build of python 2.6 for EPEL5, parallel-installable with the system "python" (2.4 in EL5, which I comaintain within RHEL). I've adapted Fedora 13's Python specfile (which I comaintain), using that specfile's ability to be built as a secondary Python version (with "main_python" set to 0). This sets "python26" as the name of the package, and leads to it owning /usr/bin/python2.6, /usr/lib(64)/python2.6, etc. I'm aware that a few EPEL5 users already build their own python 2.6 RPMs, and that there are other repositories that package a "python26". I want to avoid breaking those. Some areas of possible clashes/incompatibility: - filesystem paths. In my package I've taken the standard locations (/usr/bin/python2.6 /usr/include/python2.6, etc), and so it's very possible that my package will collide with pre-existing work in this area - RPM names: similarly, this package is "python26", "python26-devel", "tkinter26", etc - unicode: this package is built with "wide unicode" (UCS4), following what we've done in RHL, RHEL and Fedora (and indeed, I believe since Red Hat Linux 8), rather than the upstream default of UCS2. This affects ABI: if you've got extension modules built with UCS2 they won't work with UCS4 (and vice versa). Having said that, I'd expect other RPM builds of "python26" built with wide unicode and without --py-debug ought to be ABI-compatible with this build. Going through the rpmlint output: Numerous "non-standard-executable-perm" results, all with 0555 - So are the corresponding files in the main RHEL5 python RPMs; I don't regard this as a problem python26-test.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/python2.6/test/nullcert.pem - this is a test file, and is expected to be empty python26-test.x86_64: W: no-documentation - I don't think there is any python26-test.x86_64: W: uncompressed-zip /usr/lib64/python2.6/test/zipdir.zip - again, a test file, and this is expected Various "script-without-shebang" results, which appear to be false-positives python26-tools.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package (4 of these) python26.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/python2.6/lib-dynload/_sqlite3.so ['/usr/lib64'] - (the 32-bit package has /usr/lib ); this is redundant and harmless python26.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib64/python2.6/idlelib/idle.bat - I thought I'd deleted this script; probably should be fixed python26.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/python2.6/pyconfig-64.h - This is deliberate, as it's needed at runtime by distutils; see bug 531901 python26.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 2.6.4-21 2.6.4-21.el5 - Looks like a false-positive; rpmlint not coping with disttags tkinter26.x86_64: W: no-documentation - Minor -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review