Reposting my response from the other thread: Hi Evengi,
In the case of createrepo_c and libsolv, the upstream merged all of the build script changes that were necessary to enable producing Python packages, so in that sense the packages we are producing are completely unmodified. However, the RPM team isn't particularly interested in maintaining Python packages, and so they gave us permission to maintain the packages ourselves. I've forgotten in what medium that discussion took place so I'm not sure where even to look for a record of it. Nonetheless I actually have a PR open against both projects which would automate the entire packaging and release process for Python packages with Github Actions, so that they could become the official owners/maintainers without actually needing to do any work (hopefully). https://github.com/rpm-software-management/createrepo_c/pull/207 https://github.com/rpm-software-management/libcomps/pull/69 However you may notice that those PRs have been sitting for a while :) In any case we'd definitely love to transfer ownership back to them, and I've been trying to facilitate that process a little bit (with the PRs) but I don't really want to push on them too hard to do so. With respect to libsolv it's a little more complicated. As far as I can tell the upstream is just not interested at all and would probably not accept the changes into upstream regardless of whether we made the release process automated. I asked multiple times if they were interested and got essentially no response. https://github.com/openSUSE/libsolv/issues/228 + some discussion on IRC Feb 24 10:14:47 <dalley> hello Igor, do you have any opinion on this? > https://github.com/openSUSE/libsolv/issues/228#issuecomment-589915584 > Feb 24 10:18:24 <ignatenkobrain> Well, I don't see any reason to publish > libsolv to pypi :) > On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 9:31 AM Evgeni Golov <evg...@redhat.com> wrote: > Hi pulp-dev, > > While packaging pulp3 (more precisely pulp-rpm), I stumbled over the > fact that the "pulp" pypi user has uploaded "solv", "libcomps" and > "createrepo-c" without being the real author. To make matters worse, > the uploads don't 100% represent the original artifacts released by > the respective upstreams as they don't release python packages but > classic tarballs. In the case of "solv" this lead to an interesting > bug: solv upstream does not build a python egg, but your package did, > and then as the pulp-rpm egg has "solv" as a dependency, it won't load on > a system that uses the "real solv" without the egg. We patched that > out in packaging, but it remains ugly. > > I kinda understand why Pulp did that, this way you can rely on "pip" > to install everything for a working pulp-rpm environment, but I think > we/you shouldn't do that and instead either persuade (and help!) the real > upstreams to publish their stuff to PyPI or bite the bullet and accept > that pip is not able to install everything needed for a working > environment. > > Thanks! > Evgeni > > -- > Beste Grüße/Kind regards, > > Evgeni Golov > Senior Software Engineer > ________________________________________________________________________ > Red Hat GmbH, http://www.de.redhat.com/, Sitz: Grasbrunn, > Handelsregister: Amtsgericht München, HRB 153243, > Geschäftsführer: Charles Cachera, Laurie Krebs, Michael O'Neill, Thomas > Savage > > > _______________________________________________ > Pulp-dev mailing list > Pulp-dev@redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
