[Bug 2244402] Review Request: python-ebcdic - Additional EBCDIC codecs for data exchange with legacy system

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

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2244402



--- Comment #24 from Sandro <gui1ty@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> ---
Well, doing everything in %build as Benson suggested, I would need to drop
%pyproject_buildrequires and track dependencies myself. While possible, I don't
like that idea.

So far, nobody has pointed out a 'MUST NOT' item in the packaging guidelines
(here or on the mailing list), that running `ant ebcdic` in %prep would
violate. It is my opinion, while running ant in general is a build step, in
this case it is simply a preparatory step for the build that follows. An
elaborate way of some sort of applying patches.  It extracts additional codecs
for ebcdic. Whatever else is created on the fly, is not included in the
package. Only the contents in directory `ebcdic/` matter for the Python
package. So, I'm moving that into place and remove anything else preparing for
the build.

I have come forward and moved the preparation into %conf as was suggested on
the mailing list. Now, moving everything into build, this would get rather
messy, imho. It doesn't solve much either. The package would still BR ant and
whatever side effects running ant has would still be removed before the actual
build starts. I also just realized, while %pyproject-buildrequires is still in
the spec file, it has become obsolete. It seems it needs to be run in
%generate_buildrequires. So, using %conf proves to be no option either, if I
want to keep %pyproject_buildrequires. And I do.

Unless there is a rule in the packaging guidelines which forbids running ant in
%prep, I don't feel like this should be blocking the review at all.

I believe I have addressed all other issues pointed out. I patched build.xml,
so it no longer calls ebcdic/setup.py. I'm running `ant ebcdic` to make sure no
linters are required, etc. etc.

Hypothetically, imagine some upstream developer very fond of `make`, using it
for everything. That developer uses make for benign tasks. Would I not be
allowed to run `make foo` in %prep either? Even if all that `make foo` does, is
moving around a handful of files?


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2244402

Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202244402%23c24
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-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/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Conditions]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux