On Wed, 29 Sep 2010, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 09:29:45AM +0100, Paul Howarth wrote:
>> On 29/09/10 07:25, Ville Skyttä wrote:
>>> On Tuesday 28 September 2010, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>>>
>>>> The way to filter this out is probably something like this:
>>>> # we don't want to provide private python extension libs
>>>> %filter_provides_in %{python_sitearch}/.*\.so$
>>>> # actually set up the filtering
>>>> %filter_setup
>>>
>>> I still think that related recipes in Wiki should be constructed so that
>>> specfiles containing this stuff continues to work also on distro versions that
>>> don't have those macros. For example the above could be written as:
>>>
>>> %{?filter_setup:
>>> %filter_provides_in %{python_sitearch}/.*\.so$
>>> %filter_setup}
>>
>> Or it could be encapsulated in a language-specific macro included in the
>> python package, much like what is already done for perl, where the perl
>> module spec files just contain:
>>
>> %{?perl_default_filter}
>>
> I asked this on https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/16#comment:2 but maybe
> you can answer here instead:
>
> What package is defining that macro and from what Fedora version? Do you
> know if RHEL5/6 has it as well?
RHEL 6 should have it as redhat-rpm-config is pretty much just inherited
from Fedora. RHEL 5, no.
But... if people are starting to mass-disable the internal dependency
generator just to avoid provides from python/perl/etc private modules, I
think the better fix would be changing rpmbuild to handle that particular
case (extension module for an otherwise known interpreted language)
automatically.
- Panu -
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
