On 2020-08-12 16:53, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 10:23 AM Petr Viktorin <pvikt...@redhat.com> wrote:
I'll move some discussion here, where it doesn't become part of the
document:
On 2020-08-11 14:19, Petr Viktorin wrote:
These Guidelines represent a major rewrite and paradigm shift, and not
all packages are updated to reflect this.
Older guidelines are still being kept up to date, and existing packages
**MAY** use them instead of this document:
* 201x-era [Python packaging
guidelines](https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/)
(for packages that use e.g. `%py3_install` or `setup.py install`)
* [Python 2
appendix](https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python_Appendix/#_python_2_packages)
(for e.g. `%py2_install`) (Python 2 packages require a FESCo exception.)
@Conan-Kudo:
Is there something you've done here to make the new macros unequivocally
better? Do you have automated flavor builds, for example? Right now there is no
effective difference.
The new macros allow other build tools than just setuptools.
They also use upstream metadata for BuildRequires & file lists.
Of course, where possible the changes were backported to the existing
macros. I don't necessarily see the macros as the main thing that
changes. But when you look at a specfile, you can usually tell what
conventions it uses by what macros you see.
Those are all nice things, for sure. I think it'd be important to
spell that out somewhere.
Do you mean providing a summary of the changes between the existing
guidelines and these?
## PyPI parity
Every Python package in Fedora **SHOULD** also be available
on [the Python Package Index](https://pypi.org) (PyPI).
The command `pip install PROJECTNAME` **MUST** install the same package
(possibly in a different version),
install nothing,
or fail with a reasonable error message.
If this is not the case, the packager **MUST** contact upstream about this.
The goal is to get the project name registered or blocked on PyPI,
or to otherwise ensure the rule is followed.
To block a project name on PyPI, email
[ad...@pypi.org](mailto:ad...@pypi.org),
giving the project name and explaining the situation
(for example: the package cannot currently be installed via `pip`).
You can ask questions and discuss the process at the [Python
Discourse](https://discuss.python.org/t/block-names/4045).
> NOTE: Project names that were in Fedora but not on PyPI
> when these guidelines were proposed
> are *blocked* from being uploaded to PyPI.
> This prevents potential trolls from taking them,
> but it also blocks legitimate owners.
> If your package is affected, contact the Python SIG
> or [file a PyPA
issue](https://github.com/pypa/pypi-support/issues/new?labels=PEP+541&template=pep541-request.md&title=PEP+541+Request%3A+PROJECT_NAME)
> and mention `@encukou`.
This is necessary to protect users,
avoid confusion,
and enable automation as Fedora and upstream ecosystems grow more
integrated.
As always, [specific exceptions can be granted by the Packaging
Committee](https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_general_exception_policy).
@Conan-Kudo:
This is not reasonable to ask of packagers to do. Such a check is difficult to
do, and there is no particularly compelling reason for making everything
written in Python using Python build system available in PyPI. Unless you plan
to provide an automated system to inform PyPI of these things, this is not only
unreasonable, it is unenforceable.
A lot of stuff in the guidelines is unenforceable, so let's focus on the
"unreasonable" part.
There is no reason to have everything available on PyPI, but I do
believe it's reasonable to *reserve the name* in such cases.
Here's a reason why I want this:
The issue here is that Python tools have access to project names. For
example, I can get the version of Requests using:
>>> from importlib.metadata import version
>>> version('requests')
'2.22.0'
Things like this are only useful if we use a common namespace. Upstream,
that namespace *is* PyPI; there's little we can do about that.
If project names mean something else in Fedora than in the wider
ecosystem, we'll get user confusion at best.
(If you use a private package index, like they do at CERN or some
closed-source shops, there can be some collisions -- but in that case
there's a limited number of software authors and users, and a lot more
control over the package set. Conflicts in global repositories of
free/open-source software are much harder to manage.)
Lately, I think about another way to handle this: packages that aren't
on PyPI could not ship the .dist-info at all, and so, they would not
have things like `python3dist(...)` provides. They'd only be usable with
Fedora tooling, not in the wider Python ecosystem.
It's a major case to think out and test, but maybe it would be worth it?
I think omitting the Provides is unfair.
Why?
In my view, `python3dist(...)` is using the namespace of the wider
Python ecosystem.
In Fedora, you can always use Fedora package names. But for Python
tools, we need to use names from PyPI.
What I think we should do is figure out a system to make such
reservations more automated, like making such requests and linking
them to package review bugs, packaging git repos, and a koji build to
indicate their validity. PyPI upstream can then automatically verify
the validity of the request and reserve them, and we could have a bug
filed to have the maintainer reach out to upstream (or bug filed to
upstream directly if the metadata has info on that) to submit stuff to
PyPI.
Automation is always nice. But IMO, first we need to agree on what to
automate, not start with the automation.
_______________________________________________
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
