On Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at 07:10:35PM +0100, Thomas Spura wrote: > 2011/12/7 Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger@xxxxxxxxx>: > > On Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at 03:09:32PM +0100, Thomas Spura wrote: > >> Hi list, > >> > >> I'm the maintainer of python-zmq and it would be nice, if I could use > >> it also on el5, but I need python26 for that. > >> > >> Would it be ok, to use it and provide a python26-zmq or is an extra > >> review request needed for that? > >> Couldn't find any guideline, that forbits it, but there doesn't seem > >> to be any naming guideline for el, isn't it? > >> > > There aren't proper guidelines for this but there is this page: > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Python26#Packaging_Guidelines_for_EPEL5 > > > > Here's the caveats: dmalcolm is in favor of combined packaging when > > possible (ie, in the non-RHEL/EPEL split case) for packager convenience. > > I'm in favor of split packages for the reasons given on that page. > > > > It sounds like you're thinking python-zmq won't exist on EPEL6, only the > > python26-zmq subpackage. With that in mind, only the bugzilla consideration > > seems to apply. > > python-zmq already is in EPEL6. It's missing in EPEL5 because > python2.4 is too old and not supported: > http://lists.zeromq.org/pipermail/zeromq-dev/2010-November/007597.html > Oops, yeah, I should have written EPEL5, not EPEL6 above. > So > * python-zmq will never exist in EPEL5 (unless someone will fork > upstream and make it work with python2.4) or > * python-zmq will contain and provide python26-zmq or > * there will only be python26-zmq > The draft guidelines for EPEL5 don't cover this case... > > (I would prefer the providing solution 2 above, unless someone objects...) > Well.. when you say python-zmq will contain and provide python26-zmq, do you mean the python-zmq srpm will provide python26-zmq subpackage (and the main package won't exist... something I'm not sure works)? Or do you mean there will be a python-zmq package with a Provides: python26-zmq ? I would be very much against having a python-zmq binary package in EPEL that requires a python other than the main python package. It causes chaos on a number of levels: * User: "I wonder if I can use python-zmq for my new feature for my RHEL5 application... it's in EPEL, I guess so." * Packager: "python-foobar Requires: python-zmq. It's in EPEL5 so I'm going to build python-foobar there. Hmm... why does this not work?" * Sysadmin: "Developer needs python-zmq for his new application, okay yum install.... Why is this pulling in python26 packages? Time to report a bug." -Toshio
Attachment:
pgp4i2hHist5y.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
