On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 07:23:29PM +0100, Axel Thimm wrote: > 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. Looks like all has been considered in advance by the egg folks: > --single-version-externally-managed > This boolean option tells the install command to perform an "old > style" installation, with the addition of an .egg-info directory > so that the installed project will still have its metadata > available and operate normally. If you use this option, you must > also specify the --root or --record options (or both), because > otherwise you will have no way to identify and remove the > installed files. > > 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. The equivalent to *.pc files seem to be the .egg-info subdirs. So we don't need to ship the egg file in addition within the rpm file, but still feed the egg packaging system with information. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpdXXXweAsJW.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
