I've been doing some preliminary research into a 'Have our cake and eat it too' option.
While getting back up to speed on things pulp, I came across this comment on
the FPC ticket:
https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/671#comment-146777
Buried towards the end of this comment, in the second to last paragraph, is a
statement of interest
from a packaging perspective:
"Moving the common library out of %{site_packages}/pulp and into, for
instance,
%{_datadir}/pulp_common/pulp will also fix the conflict".
Something to consider, our Pulp project is not intended to be a general purpose
system library. It
is for pulp purposes only (and pulp plugins). With that, we don't necessarily
need to live in site-
packages. FWIW, we do something similar with the SCL that was created.
We will have to modify pulp tooling to either set PYTHONPATH (bash script) or
sys.path (python
script), but this allows us to keep 'import pulp' while preventing conflicts
with the PuLP project.
This also addresses the Fedora package collision by moving our files out of
site-packages as well,
removing the RPM file collision.
After doing some reading on setuptools, we can specify "setup.py install"
options in setup.cfg,
allowing us to do this across various ways of distributing our software.
The last piece is how pypi will treat this (as it was expressed to me that pip
install pulp_project
is of interest). My initial reading seems to suggest this as 'just works' with
the setup.cfg, but I
would like to verify this.
Thoughts?
Patrick
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
