[Bug 1287846] Review Request: lib389 - python module to access the 389 DIrectory Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1287846
--- Comment #17 from mreyno...@redhat.com ---
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #15)
> Created attachment 1102297 [details]
> simplify topdir usage in spec file
>
> > %setup -qc
> > mv %{name}-%{version}-1 src_root
>
> > %build
> > pushd src_root
>
> > %license src_root/LICENSE
> > %doc src_root/README
>
> This is overly complicated. What's the reason for doing it like this and
> moving the source topdir to a custom src_root?
I was just following the packaging guidelines which said to use the rpmdevtools
template: /etc/rpmdevtools/spectemplate-python.spec
I now wish I never used this template because I've had to undo almost
everything from it
>
> Note that rpmbuild enters the topdir _automatically_ for every spec section,
> provided that it knows what the dir's name is.
>
> What's the reason for appending -1 to the upstream version anyway? It can be
> made to work with rpmbuild, see the attached patch, but as this dubious -1
> will never match the package %release, it isn't helpful.
Thank you the patch works great, and it much simpler. Again, I was just trying
to follow the guidelines and use the recommended template. It was problematic
to being with, which is why I did/hack things the way I did.
Also, I have now changed the package name:
Spec URL: http://www.port389.org/binaries/python-lib389.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.port389.org/binaries/python-lib389-1.0.1-1.fc22.src.rpm
I'm still stumped why rpmlint is complaining that the source packages are not
the same size:
$ rpmlint ./python-lib389-1.0.1-1.fc22.src.rpm
python-lib389.src: W: file-size-mismatch python-lib389-1.0.1-1.tar.bz2 =
103613, http://port389.org/binaries/python-lib389-1.0.1-1.tar.bz2 = 9568
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
I have even re-downloaded(from the openshift site) the source file to the
SOURCES directory. They should be the same, yet rpmlint complains.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1287846] Review Request: lib389 - python module to access the 389 DIrectory Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1287846 --- Comment #16 from Michael Schwendt --- Btw, all Python modules in Fedora's package collection are named python-foo, following the %parent-%child naming guidelines for Python add-ons: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines There used to be an exception for Python modules that contain "py" in the name somewhere, but that exception has been dropped a few years ago. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1287846] Review Request: lib389 - python module to access the 389 DIrectory Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1287846
--- Comment #15 from Michael Schwendt ---
Created attachment 1102297
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1102297&action=edit
simplify topdir usage in spec file
> %setup -qc
> mv %{name}-%{version}-1 src_root
> %build
> pushd src_root
> %license src_root/LICENSE
> %doc src_root/README
This is overly complicated. What's the reason for doing it like this and moving
the source topdir to a custom src_root?
Note that rpmbuild enters the topdir _automatically_ for every spec section,
provided that it knows what the dir's name is.
What's the reason for appending -1 to the upstream version anyway? It can be
made to work with rpmbuild, see the attached patch, but as this dubious -1 will
never match the package %release, it isn't helpful.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1287846] Review Request: lib389 - python module to access the 389 DIrectory Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1287846 --- Comment #14 from mreyno...@redhat.com --- > Command for testing considers downloading of 'python-krbV' that is already > provided in Fedora. 'setup.py' must use that one in Fedora. I will remove the requirement for python-krbV > > + /usr/bin/python2 setup.py test > running test > Searching for python-krbV > Reading https://pypi.python.org/simple/python-krbV/ > Best match: python-krbV 1.0.90 > Downloading > https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/p/python-krbV/python-krbV-1.0.90.tar. > bz2#md5=77758e1bed2387636ca1989f1d122693 > Processing python-krbV-1.0.90.tar.bz2 > Writing /tmp/easy_install-2QLVGE/python-krbV-1.0.90/setup.cfg > Running python-krbV-1.0.90/setup.py -q bdist_egg --dist-dir > /tmp/easy_install-2QLVGE/python-krbV-1.0.90/egg-dist-tmp-6Ueu61 > krb5module.c: In function 'Context_cc_default': > ... > > Also, tests are not run: > > > Ran 0 tests in 0.000s I'm not sure what this is. I do not see this in my rpmbuild or mock output. I know that the %check section is being performed. Is there something else? > > - Sources used to build the package does not match the upstream source, as > provided in the spec URL. > > Source checksums > > http://port389.org/binaries/lib389-1.0.1-1.tar.bz2 : > CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : > 96c0648135fd795e3de286d2095af01ac6462556cc1f6dc5ded29b782155b0cf > CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : > a9e65e0c788e7b2c8f0331c51f9fdc7df0b3459c70c80bde99750d14cbff0403 I noticed this before when running rpmlint - but the sources were the same. I wonder if its an issue with port389.org? I will investigate... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1287846] Review Request: lib389 - python module to access the 389 DIrectory Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1287846 --- Comment #13 from Antonio Trande --- (In reply to mreynolds from comment #12) > (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #11) > > (In reply to mreynolds from comment #10) > > > Updated spec and srpm have been updated. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Mark > > > > Your package cannot be built without the packages required for building. It > > needs 'python2-devel' at least. > > Okay, yeah this needed some work (BuildRequires) for the mock build to > success. > > > > > Test your src package on 'koji' or with 'mock': > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Using_Mock_to_test_package_builds > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Using_the_Koji_build_system > > > > Also, get used to update the %changelog when you modify the SPEC file. > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs > > I haven't been updating the changelog since this has yet to be approved. I > was only going to update it with every new respin. Do you want me to update > it with every change we are making now? It would be better > > Uploaded new spec file/srpm > > Thanks, > Mark Command for testing considers downloading of 'python-krbV' that is already provided in Fedora. 'setup.py' must use that one in Fedora. + /usr/bin/python2 setup.py test running test Searching for python-krbV Reading https://pypi.python.org/simple/python-krbV/ Best match: python-krbV 1.0.90 Downloading https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/p/python-krbV/python-krbV-1.0.90.tar.bz2#md5=77758e1bed2387636ca1989f1d122693 Processing python-krbV-1.0.90.tar.bz2 Writing /tmp/easy_install-2QLVGE/python-krbV-1.0.90/setup.cfg Running python-krbV-1.0.90/setup.py -q bdist_egg --dist-dir /tmp/easy_install-2QLVGE/python-krbV-1.0.90/egg-dist-tmp-6Ueu61 krb5module.c: In function 'Context_cc_default': ... Also, tests are not run: > Ran 0 tests in 0.000s - Sources used to build the package does not match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Source checksums http://port389.org/binaries/lib389-1.0.1-1.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 96c0648135fd795e3de286d2095af01ac6462556cc1f6dc5ded29b782155b0cf CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a9e65e0c788e7b2c8f0331c51f9fdc7df0b3459c70c80bde99750d14cbff0403 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1287846] Review Request: lib389 - python module to access the 389 DIrectory Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1287846 --- Comment #12 from mreyno...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #11) > (In reply to mreynolds from comment #10) > > Updated spec and srpm have been updated. > > > > Thanks, > > Mark > > Your package cannot be built without the packages required for building. It > needs 'python2-devel' at least. Okay, yeah this needed some work (BuildRequires) for the mock build to success. > > Test your src package on 'koji' or with 'mock': > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Using_Mock_to_test_package_builds > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Using_the_Koji_build_system > > Also, get used to update the %changelog when you modify the SPEC file. > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs I haven't been updating the changelog since this has yet to be approved. I was only going to update it with every new respin. Do you want me to update it with every change we are making now? Uploaded new spec file/srpm Thanks, Mark -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1287846] Review Request: lib389 - python module to access the 389 DIrectory Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1287846 --- Comment #11 from Antonio Trande --- (In reply to mreynolds from comment #10) > Updated spec and srpm have been updated. > > Thanks, > Mark Your package cannot be built without the packages required for building. It needs 'python2-devel' at least. Test your src package on 'koji' or with 'mock': https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Using_Mock_to_test_package_builds https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Using_the_Koji_build_system Also, get used to update the %changelog when you modify the SPEC file. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1287846] Review Request: lib389 - python module to access the 389 DIrectory Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1287846 --- Comment #10 from mreyno...@redhat.com --- Updated spec and srpm have been updated. Thanks, Mark -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1287846] Review Request: lib389 - python module to access the 389 DIrectory Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1287846 --- Comment #9 from mreyno...@redhat.com --- Upstream ticket: https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/48358 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1287846] Review Request: lib389 - python module to access the 389 DIrectory Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1287846
--- Comment #8 from Antonio Trande ---
(In reply to mreynolds from comment #7)
> > >
> > > Why? Please explain. Since "release" gets %{?dist} I can not reuse
> > > "release" for the source code version/layout. Using "prerel", or some
> > > other
> > > variable, would make future maintenance easier since there are several
> > > places that reference it.
> >
> > I don't understand your need to make a 'prerel' macro when you can directly
> > set Release as 1%{?dist}.
> >
> > Can you do a example?
>
> Sure, so the "full" version is lib389-1.0.1-1
You refer to full "upstream" version, i think.
>
> The source code is named and packaged this way (just like what we do in
> 389-ds-base), but when I used %{?dist} it changes to: lib389-1.0.1-1.f22
> for example.
>
> This is not how the source is laid out(withe dist extension), thus I can not
> use it in most of the spec file. Then when I do my next minor release it
> will be: lib389-1.0.1-2. Using a macro I only need to bump this number up
> in one place - not in three places.
Release tag in a SPEC file is a number incremented when you rebuild a package
or do some changes; sometimes it's also occasionally upped by automated tools,
so i guess you cannot keep the Release number syncronized with the release
number of upstream in any case.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Release_Tag
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs
>BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
>Prefix: %{_prefix}
>Vendor: Red Hat Inc. <389-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org>
>rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
>Full %clean section
>%defattr(-,root,root,-)
These lines are useless.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1287846] Review Request: lib389 - python module to access the 389 DIrectory Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1287846
--- Comment #7 from mreyno...@redhat.com ---
> >
> > Why? Please explain. Since "release" gets %{?dist} I can not reuse
> > "release" for the source code version/layout. Using "prerel", or some other
> > variable, would make future maintenance easier since there are several
> > places that reference it.
>
> I don't understand your need to make a 'prerel' macro when you can directly
> set Release as 1%{?dist}.
>
> Can you do a example?
Sure, so the "full" version is lib389-1.0.1-1
The source code is named and packaged this way (just like what we do in
389-ds-base), but when I used %{?dist} it changes to: lib389-1.0.1-1.f22 for
example.
This is not how the source is laid out(withe dist extension), thus I can not
use it in most of the spec file. Then when I do my next minor release it will
be: lib389-1.0.1-2. Using a macro I only need to bump this number up in one
place - not in three places.
It's no big deal, I just manually set it where it's needed (see my latest spec
file I updated earlier)
> > >
> > > General Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
> >
> > Note - these docs say to follow(as closely as possible) the rpmdevtool
> > templates for spec files - these are obviously now outdated as you pointed
> > out various issues in my spec file which directly came from these
> > templates.
>
> 'rpmdevtools' is updated.
>
> $ rpmdev-newspec -r 4.13 test.spec
I was referring to: /etc/rpmdevtools/spectemplate-python.spec
>
> (where 4.13 is current RPM release in Fedora) makes a very clear and minimal
> spec file.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1287846] Review Request: lib389 - python module to access the 389 DIrectory Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1287846
--- Comment #6 from Antonio Trande ---
(In reply to mreynolds from comment #5)
> (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #4)
> > (In reply to mreynolds from comment #2)
> > > (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #1)
> > > > >%{!?__python2: %global __python2 %__python}
> > > > >%{!?python2_sitelib: %global python2_sitelib %(%{__python2} -c "from
> > > > >>distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib())")}
> > > >
> > > > You don't need to define __python2, python2_sitelib macros unless you
> > > > want
> > > > package in RHEL 6 and older.
> > >
> > > I was just following the rpmdevtool template, I will remove these lines.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >%define name lib389
> > > > >%define version 1.0.1
> > > > >%define prerel 1
> > > >
> > > > These are redundant as well.
> > > >
> > > > Do you want build lib389 in RHEL 5?
> > >
> > > No, RHEL7 and up
> >
> > Okay.
> >
> > >%define prerel 1
> >
> > Still redundant.
>
> Why? Please explain. Since "release" gets %{?dist} I can not reuse
> "release" for the source code version/layout. Using "prerel", or some other
> variable, would make future maintenance easier since there are several
> places that reference it.
I don't understand your need to make a 'prerel' macro when you can directly set
Release as 1%{?dist}.
Can you do a example?
>
> >
> > >BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
> > >Prefix: %{_prefix}
> > >Vendor: Red Hat Inc. <389-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org>
> > >rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
> > >Full %clean section
> > >%defattr(-,root,root,-)
> >
> > Set automatically; please, remove them.
> >
> > - Use %{__python2} macro in %build and %install
>
> I thought you asked me to remove that?
> >
> > - Use %{python2_sitelib}/*, not %{python_sitelib}/*
>
> Again I thought you wanted me to remove these.
>
I asked you not to define them unless your package is for RHEL <= 6 too.
> >
> > General Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
>
> Note - these docs say to follow(as closely as possible) the rpmdevtool
> templates for spec files - these are obviously now outdated as you pointed
> out various issues in my spec file which directly came from these templates.
'rpmdevtools' is updated.
$ rpmdev-newspec -r 4.13 test.spec
(where 4.13 is current RPM release in Fedora) makes a very clear and minimal
spec file.
>
> > Guidelines for Python code: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python
>
> Yes I've read these, but I was trying to respond to your suggestions.
> Clearly I misunderstood your comments. I apologize.
>
No problem; i hope to be as possible as clear by using English.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1287846] Review Request: lib389 - python module to access the 389 DIrectory Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1287846
--- Comment #5 from mreyno...@redhat.com ---
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #4)
> (In reply to mreynolds from comment #2)
> > (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #1)
> > > >%{!?__python2: %global __python2 %__python}
> > > >%{!?python2_sitelib: %global python2_sitelib %(%{__python2} -c "from
> > > >>distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib())")}
> > >
> > > You don't need to define __python2, python2_sitelib macros unless you want
> > > package in RHEL 6 and older.
> >
> > I was just following the rpmdevtool template, I will remove these lines.
> >
> > >
> > > >%define name lib389
> > > >%define version 1.0.1
> > > >%define prerel 1
> > >
> > > These are redundant as well.
> > >
> > > Do you want build lib389 in RHEL 5?
> >
> > No, RHEL7 and up
>
> Okay.
>
> >%define prerel 1
>
> Still redundant.
Why? Please explain. Since "release" gets %{?dist} I can not reuse "release"
for the source code version/layout. Using "prerel", or some other variable,
would make future maintenance easier since there are several places that
reference it.
Anyway, I just removed prerel and manually added the "1" to the various places
in the spec file.
>
> >BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
> >Prefix: %{_prefix}
> >Vendor: Red Hat Inc. <389-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org>
> >rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
> >Full %clean section
> >%defattr(-,root,root,-)
>
> Set automatically; please, remove them.
>
> - Use %{__python2} macro in %build and %install
I thought you asked me to remove that?
>
> - LICENSE must be tagged with %license
Sorry I missed this.
>
> - Use %{python2_sitelib}/*, not %{python_sitelib}/*
Again I thought you wanted me to remove these.
>
> General Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
Note - these docs say to follow(as closely as possible) the rpmdevtool
templates for spec files - these are obviously now outdated as you pointed out
various issues in my spec file which directly came from these templates.
> Guidelines for Python code: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python
Yes I've read these, but I was trying to respond to your suggestions. Clearly
I misunderstood your comments. I apologize.
I've uploaded the new spec file, and srpm. (same rpmlint results)
Thanks again for reviewing this!
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1287846] Review Request: lib389 - python module to access the 389 DIrectory Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1287846
--- Comment #4 from Antonio Trande ---
(In reply to mreynolds from comment #2)
> (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #1)
> > >%{!?__python2: %global __python2 %__python}
> > >%{!?python2_sitelib: %global python2_sitelib %(%{__python2} -c "from
> > >>distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib())")}
> >
> > You don't need to define __python2, python2_sitelib macros unless you want
> > package in RHEL 6 and older.
>
> I was just following the rpmdevtool template, I will remove these lines.
>
> >
> > >%define name lib389
> > >%define version 1.0.1
> > >%define prerel 1
> >
> > These are redundant as well.
> >
> > Do you want build lib389 in RHEL 5?
>
> No, RHEL7 and up
Okay.
>%define prerel 1
Still redundant.
>BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
>Prefix: %{_prefix}
>Vendor: Red Hat Inc. <389-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org>
>rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
>Full %clean section
>%defattr(-,root,root,-)
Set automatically; please, remove them.
- Use %{__python2} macro in %build and %install
- LICENSE must be tagged with %license
- Use %{python2_sitelib}/*, not %{python_sitelib}/*
General Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
Guidelines for Python code: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1287846] Review Request: lib389 - python module to access the 389 DIrectory Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1287846 --- Comment #3 from mreyno...@redhat.com --- $ rpmlint ./lib389-1.0.1-1.fc22.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint ./lib389-1.0.1-1.fc22.src.rpm lib389.src: W: file-size-mismatch lib389-1.0.1-1.tar.bz2 = 103561, http://port389.org/binaries/lib389-1.0.1-1.tar.bz2 = 9568 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. The files are the same size, so I think this is a false positive. I have also uploaded new versions of the spec file and source rpm: http://www.port389.org/binaries/lib389.spec http://www.port389.org/binaries/lib389-1.0.1-1.fc22.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1287846] Review Request: lib389 - python module to access the 389 DIrectory Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1287846
Antonio Trande changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anto.tra...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Antonio Trande ---
>%{!?__python2: %global __python2 %__python}
>%{!?python2_sitelib: %global python2_sitelib %(%{__python2} -c "from
>>distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib())")}
You don't need to define __python2, python2_sitelib macros unless you want
package in RHEL 6 and older.
>%define name lib389
>%define version 1.0.1
>%define prerel 1
These are redundant as well.
Do you want build lib389 in RHEL 5?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1287846] Review Request: lib389 - python module to access the 389 DIrectory Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1287846 mreyno...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
