[Bug 1287846] Review Request: lib389 - python module to access the 389 DIrectory Server

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1287846



--- Comment #6 from Antonio Trande <anto.trande@xxxxxxxxx> ---
(In reply to mreynolds from comment #5)
> (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #4)
> > (In reply to mreynolds from comment #2)
> > > (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #1)
> > > > >%{!?__python2: %global __python2 %__python}
> > > > >%{!?python2_sitelib: %global python2_sitelib %(%{__python2} -c "from >distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib())")}
> > > > 
> > > > You don't need to define __python2, python2_sitelib macros unless you want
> > > > package in RHEL 6 and older.
> > > 
> > > I was just following the rpmdevtool template, I will remove these lines.
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > >%define name lib389
> > > > >%define version 1.0.1
> > > > >%define prerel 1
> > > > 
> > > > These are redundant as well.
> > > > 
> > > > Do you want build lib389 in RHEL 5?
> > > 
> > > No, RHEL7 and up
> > 
> > Okay.
> > 
> > >%define prerel 1
> > 
> > Still redundant.
> 
> Why?  Please explain.  Since "release" gets %{?dist} I can not reuse
> "release" for the source code version/layout.  Using "prerel", or some other
> variable, would make future maintenance easier since there are several
> places that reference it.

I don't understand your need to make a 'prerel' macro when you can directly set
Release as 1%{?dist}.

Can you do a example?

> 
> > 
> > >BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
> > >Prefix: %{_prefix}
> > >Vendor: Red Hat Inc. <389-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
> > >Full %clean section
> > >%defattr(-,root,root,-)
> > 
> > Set automatically; please, remove them.
> > 
> > - Use %{__python2} macro in %build and %install
> 
> I thought you asked me to remove that?
> > 
> > - Use %{python2_sitelib}/*, not %{python_sitelib}/*
> 
> Again I thought you wanted me to remove these.
> 

I asked you not to define them unless your package is for RHEL <= 6 too.

> > 
> > General Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
> 
> Note - these docs say to follow(as closely as possible) the rpmdevtool
> templates for spec files - these are obviously now outdated as you pointed
> out  various issues in my spec file which directly came from these templates.

'rpmdevtools' is updated.

$ rpmdev-newspec -r 4.13 test.spec

(where 4.13 is current RPM release in Fedora) makes a very clear and minimal
spec file.

> 
> > Guidelines for Python code: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python
> 
> Yes I've read these, but I was trying to respond to your suggestions. 
> Clearly I misunderstood your comments.  I apologize.
> 

No problem; i hope to be as possible as clear by using English.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]