[opensuse-packaging] Creating meta-packages for python2/3 from a single spec
Hi! I am in the situation where I need to build two meta-packages from a single spec file, one being named python2-$UPSTREAMNAME and the other being named python3-$UPSTREAMNAME. These packages are supposed to pull the same set of packages, with the only difference that python2-$UPSTREAMNAME pulls in the python2- packages while python3-$UPSTREAMNAME pulls in the python3- packages. The python2- and python3- binary packages are also created from a single spec file, one example is python-azure-batch which can be found in [1]. In this spec file, I'm using %python_subpackages from python-rpm-macros to generate the python2- and python3- binary packages. I tried using this technique for the meta-package as well. However, that didn't work because python-rpm-macros expects a setup.py to be present which, of course, I don't have in an effectively empty package. So, I am wondering whether anyone has a clever idea how to solve this issue. I would know how to do it for a Debian package, but my RPM background is not yet proficient enough to come up with a solution for RPM :). Thanks, Adrian
[1] https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/devel:languages:python/python-azure-... -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
hello, On 18.8.2017 17:11, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
I tried using this technique for the meta-package as well. However, that didn't work because python-rpm-macros expects a setup.py to be present which, of course, I don't> have in an effectively empty package.
no, python-rpm-macros don't expect setup.py, they don't ever touch it unless you use %python_build what error are you seeing? what you are trying to do looks valid and should work with singlespec as is. regards m.
Hi Jan! On 08/21/2017 01:02 PM, jan matejek wrote:
On 18.8.2017 17:11, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
I tried using this technique for the meta-package as well. However, that didn't work because python-rpm-macros expects a setup.py to be present which, of course, I don't> have in an effectively empty package.
no, python-rpm-macros don't expect setup.py, they don't ever touch it unless you use %python_build
That's odd. I basically took the current version of my package [1], commented out the Source directives and the %python_build directives and it fails with:
what error are you seeing? what you are trying to do looks valid and should work with singlespec as is.
[ 19s] + /usr/bin/python2 setup.py build '--executable=/usr/bin/python2 -s' [ 19s] /usr/bin/python2: can't open file 'setup.py': [Errno 2] No such file or directory [ 19s] error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.f17BNP (%build) I'm attaching a diff with the changes I made, then ran "osc build". Adrian
[1] https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/Cloud:Tools:azuresdkbreak/python-azu...
On 21.8.2017 15:38, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
That's odd. I basically took the current version of my package [1], commented out the Source directives and the %python_build directives and it fails with:
rpm macros expand even in comments -- macros have higher priority than comments %python_build expansions is multiline so if you write #%python_build, you comment out its first line and get all the rest you need to either delete the macro entirely, or escape it with an additional % sign: #%%python_build (you might get interesting results with the commented out %files section as well) hope this helps m.
what error are you seeing? what you are trying to do looks valid and should work with singlespec as is.
[ 19s] + /usr/bin/python2 setup.py build '--executable=/usr/bin/python2 -s' [ 19s] /usr/bin/python2: can't open file 'setup.py': [Errno 2] No such file or directory [ 19s] error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.f17BNP (%build)
I'm attaching a diff with the changes I made, then ran "osc build".
Adrian
[1] https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/Cloud:Tools:azuresdkbreak/python-azu...
On 08/21/2017 03:44 PM, jan matejek wrote:
On 21.8.2017 15:38, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
That's odd. I basically took the current version of my package [1], commented out the Source directives and the %python_build directives and it fails with:
rpm macros expand even in comments -- macros have higher priority than comments %python_build expansions is multiline so if you write #%python_build, you comment out its first line and get all the rest
Ooooh. Very interesting. I was not expecting that but it perfectly makes sense :).
you need to either delete the macro entirely, or escape it with an additional % sign: #%%python_build
Got it.
(you might get interesting results with the commented out %files section as well)
hope this helps
Definitely. Thanks a lot for the quick help! Adrian -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
On 08/21/2017 03:46 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
(you might get interesting results with the commented out %files section as well)
hope this helps
Definitely. Thanks a lot for the quick help!
Hmm. So, I have followed your advice and properly commented out %python_build and so on. While it now builds fine, it actually just generates the source RPM. I thoroughly checked whether I missed something obvious but I couldn't find anything. With the changes in the diff, I just get the source RPM. Any ideas? Adrian
On 21.8.2017 16:41, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
On 08/21/2017 03:46 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
(you might get interesting results with the commented out %files section as well)
hope this helps
Definitely. Thanks a lot for the quick help!
Hmm. So, I have followed your advice and properly commented out %python_build and so on. While it now builds fine, it actually just generates the source RPM.
I thoroughly checked whether I missed something obvious but I couldn't find anything. With the changes in the diff, I just get the source RPM.
You don't have any %files sections. If you want a package, you need the appropriate %files section, even if they are empty. Otherwise the package is not generated. In this case, simply uncomment the "%files %{python_files}" line. (RPM only generates packages that have appropriate %files sections. This is actually useful for singlespec: you get packages called "python-azure-sdk", but the resulting spec file doesn't have a "%files" section for it, only "%files -n python3-azure-sdk" and "%files -n python2-azure-sdk", so you get python2 package, python3 package, but no python- package.) regards m.
Any ideas?
Adrian
On 08/21/2017 04:47 PM, jan matejek wrote:
You don't have any %files sections. If you want a package, you need the appropriate %files section, even if they are empty. Otherwise the package is not generated. In this case, simply uncomment the "%files %{python_files}" line.
Indeed. That fixed it.
(RPM only generates packages that have appropriate %files sections. This is actually useful for singlespec: you get packages called "python-azure-sdk", but the resulting spec file doesn't have a "%files" section for it, only "%files -n python3-azure-sdk" and "%files -n python2-azure-sdk", so you get python2 package, python3 package, but no python- package.)
Thanks for the explanation. Adrian -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
participants (3)
-
jan matejek -
jan matejek -
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz