I propose to extend Packaging:Python wikipage:
=== Suggested extension ===
Example of such extension can be found here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Marbu/PackagingPythonGuidelines
=== Referece ===
See my original post on python-devel list:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/XCFQKAXKWDNDWJOMV6VOT3FCLMP7GUU3/
=== Reasoning ===
The main gist from the post referenced above follows:
I noticed a problem with pyp2rpm: it's a great tool, but it's hardly visible and new python packager can easily miss it. The fact that both Packaging:Python and SIGs/Python wikipages doesn't properly mention it doesn't really help as well. No fried of mine who recently started working on packaging his project is aware of this tool and I find out about it only because I had weird newcomer's kind of questions on this mailing list and people here were kind enough to point out that I should check it first.
My current idea how to maintain rpm packages for my own python project is summed up here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Marbu/PythonPackaging
Note that this is not a suggestion how the better description should look like. I link it here so that you can point out which part you disagree with (I'm not even a python sig member after all), so that we can catch possible disagreements as soon as possible. My suggestions below assumes that this makes sense. Keep in mind that I have hardly any real experience with python rpm packaging.
So what exactly I have in mind? Compare this page:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python
with:
https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_Python
The difference includes:
See also:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Haskell
which clearly points out to cabal-rpm tool right in the beginning.
Does pyp2rpm produce packages which meet the packaging guidelines? I've never used the tool so I don't know.
In general I would prefer all of the packaging guidelines to be purely packaging policy, and leave tips and tutorials and such to other pages on the wiki. If for no other reason than this maximizes the amount of content which can be maintained by anyone. That being said, I don't think there's any problem with mentioning a tool directly on the guidelines page if it will generate a package which closely follows the guidelines. But the python guidelines have been in flux, and they will hopefully be changing again in the not too distant future, and I don't know how this tool will keep up.
pyp2rpm aims to follow the guidelines.
But I agree it would be nicer to have the how-to page that anyone can contribute to. Than we can link to that page from the guidelines, so people will find that page.
Yes, I agree. That's what I have in mind: just to mention the tool quickly and link to a how-to with more details. See my initial proposal of the changes here:
I'm going to create first version of the howto next week - so that it could be linked properly from this page.
From my personal perspective (I started to learn about python packaging for Fedora about half a year ago), it doesn't really matter that the pyp2rpm tool couldn't keep up during big changes of the guidelines, because the guidelines can't do that either (by definition). A new guy interested in packaging would just need to wait until the situation settles down again.
I've added it to the meeting, but without at least a draft proposal fpc probably won't be able to do much that's useful.
The draft is here:
I just forgot to add it into [[https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Packaging_guidelines_drafts|Packaging guidelines drafts category]], which I have just fixed.
We discussed this at this weeks meeting (http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2016-02-18/fpc.2016-02-18-17.00.txt):
I had to request a change to our mediawiki configuration in order to allow me to use {{DISPLAYTITLE:...}} but that's in place now and I think it's a bit more obvious. The page title and the main heading now say "Fedora Packaging Guidelines for Python" which I hope will alleviate that confusion.
Thank you. Since the other proposals were rejected on fpc meeting (as summed up in a comment 7), there is nothing else to do here and so the ticket can be closed.
Metadata Update from @marbu: - Issue assigned to james
Log in to comment on this ticket.