On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 05:47:48PM +0000, David Lutterkort wrote: > On Sat, 2006-12-16 at 14:09 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 07:43:04PM -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > > >>>>> "TK" == Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > > TK> I think tibbs had the opposite viewpoint but I don't remember if > > > TK> we got to a point where he decided it didn't matter or we came to > > > TK> an agreement or just let it drop. > > > > > > I guess the point is that I can't figure out what additional value it > > > adds, and in general it's bad to package up something that's > > > completely needless. > > > > egg is a packaging method that is orthogonal to what we use. Leaving > > the eggs around may get users to start using egg-installation and get > > files on the system unregistered by rpm. > > > > Or not? If the above is correct eggs should even be banned just as > > other non-native package formats are banned (debs or tarballs for > > example). > > The crucial issue are the dependencies that right now have to stay > within each packaging format; if rpm's can't contain any egg (or gem or > whatnot) info, users will end up installing the same package twice, just > to fulfill dependencies completely within each packaging system. Don't you have the same issue if you install the egg with -Z? If not, then the (egg-)package dependencies are obvioulsy spooled somewhere on disk for easy_install and friends to find. > It would be much more userfriendly if we laid the groundwork for other > packaging systems to depend on rpm-installed bits; that mostly means to > _allow_ inclusion of non-rpm packaging metadata in rpms. If you like so, having "egg-provides" is fine, of course. Just like we have foo.pc, but don't keep the full tarball around. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgprSMJpOBklN.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
