On Thu, Dec 09, 2021 10:44:37 +0100, Petr Viktorin wrote: > <snip> > Hi,
Hi Petr, > These are generated from Python metadata, e.g. install_requires in > setuptools: > https://github.com/uqfoundation/ppft/blob/a4dd5832103512f6df717637b03fb507a00efd84/setup.py#L200 > > If you only add the RPM provides, tools that read the Python-specific > metadata might complain about not finding pp. And unfortunately Python > packaging doesn't have good support for "virtual provides" (Provides-Dist) > yet. > > So it looks like it would be best to patch setup.py (or equivalent) in all > dependent packages. And perhaps push the change upstream, if ppft is better > than pp. (I don't know anything about these packages.) Thanks for confirming. We thought so too. So I'll add a conflicts in ppft instead to ensure that pp isn't packaged up in the future. The two modules do provide the same files too, so they cannot both be installed. -- Thanks again, Regards, Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD" (He / Him / His) | https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Time zone: Europe/London
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ python-devel mailing list -- python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
