On Monday, 7 February 2022 13.58.24 WET Charalampos Stratakis wrote:
> Makes a lot of sense to error out the build in this case.
I agree. I can not imagine a case where this makes sense, or if I ever found
an example where that was ever the case...
--
José Abílio
On Tuesday, 14 December 2021 20.11.54 WET Miro Hrončok wrote:
> Hello Pythonistas,
> the pyproject-rpm-macros-0-51 update (available in Rawhide+ELN and updates
> ready for 33 and 34) introduces a new provisional %{pyproject_build_lib}
> macro.
"ready for 33 and 34"
This is a proof, not that it
On Sunday, 12 September 2021 17.59.02 WEST Thomas Vandal wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am a PhD student in astronomy at the Université de Montréal, in
> Canada. I use Fedora as my main OS and use Python a lot for my research
> work. I am new to contributing to Fedora. I am interested in packaging
> Python
On Monday, January 4, 2021 7:54:54 PM WET Sérgio Basto wrote:
> yes, you may want BR python36-devel , take a look at
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Bkabrda/EPEL7_Python3orhttps://src.fedor
> aproject.org/rpms/python3-dateutil/blob/epel7/f/python3-dateutil.spec
>
On Sunday, January 17, 2021 8:01:33 PM WET Jakub Kadlčík wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> as Florian pointed out, the aarch64 architecture support for EPEL 7 was
> discontinued, so I just disabled the epel-7-aarch64 chroot in Copr as
> well.
Thank you Jakub. :-)
Only when Florian sent the message I
I have used copr to build the first alpha release of lyx-2.4:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jamatos/lyx-devel/build/1858028/
For EPEL7 it build for x86_64 and it fails for aarch64, due to %{python3} not
being defined.
The spec file has BR: python3-devel.
In the install stage I have
On Friday, December 4, 2020 9:56:35 AM WET Lumír Balhar wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I'm getting HTTP/404 for
> https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/nonamedotc/nbconvert-6.0
> .7/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01795156-python-nbconvert/
>
> Could you please try to rebuild the package?
> Have a nice
On Wednesday, 5 August 2020 12.14.58 WEST Miro Hrončok wrote:
> Hey José Abílio o/
Hi Miro, :-)
thank you for pointing me in the right direction.
> This is https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/PythonMacroError
>
> And in the spec:
>
> # export PYTHONPATH=%{buildroot}%{python_sitearch}
>
Hi,
I am having troubles build rpy in Fedora 33 and I am running out of ideas.
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rpy
An example of a failure is here:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=48721928
The problem says:
error: attempt to use unversioned python, define %__python
On Tuesday, 23 June 2020 17.26.23 WEST Tomas
Hrnciar wrote:
> pygsljamatos
Done.
--
José Abílio
___
python-devel mailing list -- python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
On Wednesday, 3 June 2020 19.05.03 WEST Scott Talbert wrote:
> And of course the build fails for a different reason (I checked in
mock
> but not koji), sigh. So it's probably something that recently landed in
> Rawhide, I'm guessing boost related now?
Yes, see:
On Monday, 18 May 2020 17.38.10 WEST Miro Hrončok wrote:
> And I change it to:
>
> %python3_pkgversion 36
> %python3_other_pkgversion 34
>
> When needed. It is tedious
I think that we need some kind of rpmenv (mostly in terms of the configuration
files but you get the idea). :-)
I am only
On Friday, 1 May 2020 15.57.36 WEST José Abílio Matos wrote:
> At the same I find it handy if a package is available at pypi to
be
> available as python3-.
Specially if the module can be used in other places...
--
José Abílio
___
python-devel m
On Friday, 1 May 2020 15.45.23 WEST Ian McInerney wrote:
> Thanks. I had seen that part of the policies, but I wasn't sure what counted
> as a "module" (I don't work with Python much and so I didn't know if the
> fact there were items installed into the site packages directory or an
> egg-info
On Tuesday, 24 March 2020 16.38.38 WET Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> The binary path only cares about binary package names, so it is unaffected
> by this change.
My concern here is not about the path of binaries.
The issue is about the upgrade path. But after looking into the pull request
On Tuesday, 24 March 2020 12.40.24 WET Miro Hrončok wrote:
> We would like ro rename the "python3" component (SRPM) to "python39" to
> make maintaining various Python versions in various Fedora versions
> easier. The names of binary RPMs would be unchanged; you still do `dnf
> install python3`.
On Tuesday, 25 February 2020 17.35.04 WET Miro Hrončok wrote:
> Not yet. See also https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1061
Thank you. It is nice to know that this is being worked (even if as a thought
experiment). :-)
Manually working with this is not difficult but it is
Hi,
my case study is nikola (a static pages generator).
I am using the automatically generated dependencies but that only covers the
Requires part of the spec file.
My question is if there are any tools that people use, working from the setup
file, to generate the addition fields like
On Tuesday, 16 April 2019 10.04.15 WEST Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 15. 04. 19 19:11, José Abílio Matos wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> >recently I got a bug report regarding doit (packaged in python3-doit):
> >
> > "setuptools is required at runtime"
&
Hi,
recently I got a bug report regarding doit (packaged in python3-doit):
"setuptools is required at runtime"
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1695045
The obvious fix is to add python3-setuptools as a BR for python3-doit.
My question here is if I should report this upstream?
If
On Wednesday, 26 September 2018 00.35.32 WEST Miro Hrončok wrote:
> I would rather not. The package split wasn't properly tested and F29 is
> almost out. This isn't something to stick in between Beta and Final.
That I understand. :-)
> IMHO the main purpose of matplotlib in the RPM package is
On Friday, 17 August 2018 18.54.59 WEST Miro Hrončok wrote:
> Is there an upstream schedule? That would very much help us to determine
> if this is F29 material.
You know the answer: when it is ready. :-)
Now on more serious note and judging from the previous releases I would expect
this to be
On Monday, 13 August 2018 21.06.03 WEST Miro Hrončok wrote:
> Should we try to package 3.0.0rc1 in Copr?
Yes, in the sense that it would be interesting to have this in Fedora 29. :-)
Like what you have described above in the thread:
"Create a python2-matplotib SRPM with the python2 package of
On Sunday, 12 August 2018 21.19.39 WEST Miro Hrončok wrote:
> Is the 3 API substantially different from 2?
Nope, it is the (natural) evolution of matplotlib 2.
For further details see:
https://matplotlib.org/devdocs/users/whats_new.html
> If not, I'd do what we did with ipython, astroid,
On Monday, November 14, 2016 11:49:32 PM WET Athos Ribeiro wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Guidelines say that %{python3_sitelib}/__pycache__ should not be owned
> by python packages because python3-libs already owns it [1]. That
> directory is actually owned by system-python-libs.
>
> While going through a
25 matches
Mail list logo
