On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 03:23:36PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > I tested this with spectool -g and python-psycopg2 and all variants of that > > py3ver line work.(without even a warning). So spectool isn't really an > > issue. > > I don't know what spectool is, but I can demonstrate what I see every > time I work with this package: > Paul's concern was about spectool -g python-psycopg2.spec doing the right thing. I checked, and it does. > [tgl@rh3 ~]$ cd f-pkg/python-psycopg2/master/ > [tgl@rh3 master]$ ls > psycopg2-2.4.4.tar.gz python-psycopg2.spec sources > [tgl@rh3 master]$ fedpkg srpm > sh: python3: command not found > error: Macro %py3ver has empty body > sh: python3: command not found > error: Macro %py3ver has empty body > > sh: python3: command not found > error: Macro %py3ver has empty body > Wrote: /home/tgl/f-pkg/python-psycopg2/master/python-psycopg2-2.4.4-1.fc18.src.rpm > > The generated SRPM is fine, and I can (and do) test it in mock, but > those messages would certainly scare anybody not familiar with the > package. I've seen similar behavior with other packages. I'd like > this guideline to show how this sort of thing can be avoided. > I would keep the concerns separate. The original post was about not having extraneous deps simply because someone is more comfortable writing a routine check for information in $RANDOM_UNRELATED_LANGUAGE rather than shell. This concern is about making things that you actually must BuildRequire in order to build the package not display warnings when the BuildRequires are not satisfied. They're very different. And I'm not sure that I would vote the same for each of those. -Toshio
Attachment:
pgpMK4mldjIZ6.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
