On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Paul Nasrat <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't think bdist_rpm should track vendor packaging requirements, > purely as those recommendations may change faster than the release > process of distutils. I also believe bdist_rpm may be going away in > the future:
Yes I confirm this. We removed it in packaging because we believe it should be maintained by the RPM communities -- with their own release cycles etc. FWIW I have a custom version in the pypi2rpm project where I just feed a .spec file to the bdist_rpm command, so I can do proper RHEL or Fedora packaging. > For Fedora have you considered rpmdev-newspec which can creates a > templated python spec file for your packages. > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package > > Paul > > On 8 November 2011 21:40, Stanley A. Klein <[email protected]> wrote: >> I will need to build some Python packages for Fedora and Centos. The spec >> file produced by bdist_rpm automatically includes the statement >> %files -f INSTALLED_FILES >> >> The Fedora Python packaging instruction includes a recommendation to avoid >> use of INSTALLED_FILES and provides some alternatives. That is the first >> incompatibility I've encountered, but there may be more. >> >> The bdist_rpm code probably should be changed to enable compatibility. >> Meanwhile, is there a workaround? >> >> >> Stan Klein >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] >> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig >> > _______________________________________________ > Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig > -- Tarek Ziadé | http://ziade.org _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
