[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Python module's name changed unnecessarily, making it impossible to express dependencies on it (#373)

[Adam Williamson]

"Adding 2 egg-info files with different Name: strings might work." - yes, it might, but that would be your job, not mine. It's a potential solution to this problem, but you'd need to understand (which you apparently don't right now) exactly what the purpose and meaning of these files is, and the conventions around Python module distribution in general, to know a 'correct' way of setting up your project to build and ship two different eggs that refer to the same actual library.

"Just as easily, you could certainly rewrite your dependencies between F26 -> F27"

No...no, I really can't. I can't even parse quite what you *mean* by this. `relvalconsumer` is just a Python project. It happens to be quite Fedora-specific, but it also happens that it isn't actually packaged for Fedora at all (packaging it would just be a pain in the neck because I'd have to ship updates and all that crap every time I need to tweak the code at all, and it has exactly two production deployments in the world). So there is just...no *place* to implement this difference. I don't have Fedora 26 and Fedora 27 packages for the code. I could theoretically set up two branches of the same code which differ solely in their requirements, and have the ansible plays that deploy the code figure out whether the host is running F26 or F27 and check out the appropriate branch, but that's way the hell out there in crazy-land, and very specific to my situation. I've already resolved my specific situation by just dropping the use of `rpm` entirely in my particular project. But there *could* be other people out there depending on `rpm-python` - as mentioned above, I already found at least one project which has already had to work around this rename.

"or just not express the dependency within setup tools; since you are not checking a version in your install.requires file, egg-info files are rather overkill."

just not expressing the dependency and always assuming it's present would also have worked for my current practical purposes, but again, it's clearly *wrong*, and it doesn't mean that changing the name of the distribution for `pkg_resources` / `setuptools` / etc. purposes was the *right thing to do*. It's clearly a wrong thing to do in general.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/373#issuecomment-353686384
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rpm.org/pipermail/rpm-maint/attachments/20171222/c8c982d8/attachment-0001.html>