https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835432 --- Comment #19 from John Morris <john@xxxxxxxxxxx> --- Hi fellas, New package: http://www.zultron.com/static/2012/06/freecad/python-pycxx.spec http://www.zultron.com/static/2012/06/freecad/python-pycxx-6.2.4-1.fc16.src.rpm Bunch of changes: - Python 3 package, 'python3-pycxx-devel', builds if '--with=python3' specified - Header files installed into /usr/include/CXX. - Dedupes haders shared by python 2 and 3; but more important, - One python-version-independent pkg-config .pc file: 'pkg-config --variable=includedir PyCXX' instead of '... Py3CXX' or similar. - A precedent is numpy - If this is unacceptable, they can be moved back to /usr/include/python<version>/CXX, and the pkg-config files split into 'Py2CXX.pc' and 'Py3CXX.pc' or something equivalent - Source files installed into /usr/src/CXX - Complies with FHS, though not much written about it - A precedent is dwm-user, which does very nearly the same thing - If this is unacceptable, they can be moved into the headers directory - Lots of changes to setup.py; I hope these can be accepted upstream: - New patch merges old patch that converts tabs to spaces and fixes indentation - Headers and sources previously omitted are now installed by setup.py instead of through hackage in specfile (install_headers extended to handle subdirs) - Install only python2 or python3 code, as appropriate I'll address some of the comments here. (In reply to comment #16) > - imho, there's no need for obsoletes, there's no version to obsolete. 'Obsoletes' tags removed. I changed the package name from the old version in the Zultron repo, but I now see this is unnecessary. BTW, I added the version to Obsoletes to silence a fedora-review warning. > - buildrequires: python-devel should be python2-devel, or something like: > BuildRequires: python2-devel > %if 0%{?with_python3} > BuildRequires: python3-devel > %endif # if with_python3 > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires Done. > - you should link your patches to tickets upstream, esp. you should put a > comment to those patches, what they do or why they are required. Done. > - your package python-%{modname} doesn't have %files:, it contains > [mrunge@mrungexp result]$ rpm -qlp python-pycxx-6.2.4-0.fc18.src.rpm > pycxx-6.2.4.tar.gz > python-pycxx-6.2.4-change-include-paths.patch > python-pycxx-6.2.4-fix-indentation.patch > python-pycxx.spec Correct. There's no regular package, only a -devel package. Other packages linking this code don't require any extra library files or config files. > - there's python3 support built in, so you should package that too. Done. 'rpmbuild -ba python-pycxx.spec --with=python3' builds a python3-pycxx-devel package. > - compiler flags are not required for noarch packages, so either noarch, or > compiler flags... Whoops, an artifact of the specfile I stole. Removed. (In reply to comment #17) > [...] > (In reply to comment #15) > > - Own /usr/share/python2.7/ > > I'm concerned about this one. I'm not sure anything but python should own a > directly like that. Perhaps /usr/src was a good idea? Fixed, see above. Agreed, /usr/src seems best, and /usr/share/python2.7 is abominal. Whew! Y'all are tough! :) -- 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