Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-packaging (54 mails)

< Previous Next >
[opensuse-packaging] Re: Packaging python wheels
  • From: Todd Rme <toddrme2178@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 19:28:19 -0400
  • Message-id: <CADb7s=v2U=yXPN4vLZVm=ML8+8yY9URafoPcH+wt+-ngyj_JhA@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 11:47 AM, jan matejek <jmatejek@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 19.10.2016 02:14, Todd Rme wrote:
So for packages that don't come with their own build script, and whose
wheels lack any compiled code, I think it should be allowed to use the
wheel for packaging our rpms.

I'm OK with using wheels in place of source tarball, in these cases as
you describe.

Somewhat ambivalent about just dropping the wheel into site-packages and
leaving it at that. Fedora allows using wheels, in a way [1], but they
unpack them in the %install section (via a patch to pip [2][3] that we
don't have but could conceivably adopt). I think we should do the same
thing, as opposed to simply installing the wheel, but i don't really
have a good reason, just a gut feeling.

m.

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PythonWheels
[2] https://github.com/pypa/pip/issues/1351
[3]
https://github.com/fedora-python/rewheel/blob/92fd4dd0f14fb007323d8032b3dc9e1bd6a662bd/python-pip-spec.patch#L100


No, I definitely don't want to just drop the wheel in. My thinking
was to use pip's --root and --prefix arguments just like setup.py
currently supports. For packages that only install python modules and
nothing else, this works fine. If it gets to the point where packages
that install executables are only available as wheels, I guess we
could implement that patch. But right now I am not aware of any
packages that require it.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >
References