Hi, Great work !
FYI it's on my pile in the bug tracker in Python. I'll try to work on these before Pycon Also, note that I am planning to release Distutils as a standalone package before Pycon; since the current trunk targets Python 2.3 to 3.1 Regards Tarek On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Gerry Reno <gr...@verizon.net> wrote: > Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) wrote: > > Hello, guys, > > I have fixed distutils (and setuptools remains working) with the attached > patch. Now, RPMs will be built according to the Fedora Package Naming > Guidelines: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Non-Numeric_Version_in_Release > > which I understand to be the most useful reference in terms of naming > pre-release packages. This should work correctly in at least: > > - Fedora > - RHEL > - SUSE > > I urge you patch your python 2.4s and 2.5s and 2.6s and push this update to > distributions. I have done that myself at my own repository. > > Now we can enjoy one more reason to build RPMs (and eggs! ... according to > my workbench at http://yum.rudd-o.com/SCRIPTS/ -- feel free to pick its > brains) DIRECTLY from the cheese shop, especially if you're using pip. > > Oh, I also have pip at my repo (cd ../RPMS/noarch in my workbench). > > See attached patch. I will log bugs where it corresponds too. > -- > > Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) <rud...@rudd-o.com> > Rudd-O.com - http://rudd-o.com/ > GPG key ID 0xC8D28B92 at http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/ > > Now playing, courtesy of Amarok: Aqua - Cartoon heroes > Windows 95 is not a virus. Viruses actually do something. > > Hi Manuel, > You worked on my problem! Great. > So today what we have been doing to deal with the pre-release and lexical > ordering problem involving pre-releases is this: > We impose a restriction on how the pre-release is identified. So for > example if you intend to end up with a final version-release of 5.0.0-1 and > you want to first put out some betas or release candidates then we have to > name them as, 5.0.0-0_beta1, or 5.0.0-0_rc1 and this is so that the lexical > ordering for RPM will be correct. In other words you must put the > pre-release designation into the 'release' part of VERSION-RELEASE. What we > had seen developers doing previously was to name these as 5.0.0_beta1 or > 5.0.0_rc1 (making the pre-release designation part of the 'version' string) > which then did not work for the lexical ordering of the final release of > 5.0.0-1 because 5.0.0 (version) was not lexically superior to 5.0.0_rc1. So > we were able to solve this problem without any code changes to distutils. > But this also presented a challenge for the other distribution targets such > as 'sdist' because they were totally unaware of this 'version-release' > combination and only knew about 'version'. So as a workaround we were doing > this: > # WORKAROUND > # define both version AND release > version='5.0.0' > release='1' > # combine them for all targets except 'bdist_rpm' > if sys.argv[1] != 'bdist_rpm': > version = version+'-'+release > So this wasn't perfect but it actually worked quite well and we could get > 'sdist' to work properly in conjunction with 'bdist_rpm'. > So now with your patch all the targets should be able to set and use both > 'version' and 'release' and we don't need our workaround and that will be > great. > > Regards, > Gerry > > > > > -- Tarek Ziadé | Association AfPy | www.afpy.org Blog FR | http://programmation-python.org Blog EN | http://tarekziade.wordpress.com/ _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
