python packaging

Jeff Johnson n3npq at
Mon Jun 20 20:32:09 CEST 2016

On Jun 20, 2016, at 10:11 AM, Jacek Konieczny wrote:

>> reality is that we have no consistency,
> Some people seem to don't care at all. :-(
> I am afraid, that whatever scheme we decide on, people will still commit crap. That is minority, but quite annoying.

Distro package naming is up to distros ... BUT ...

If you wish naming consistency, then you will likely need detection and enforcement.
rpmbuild implementations is one mechanism.

rpmbuild already runs *RE's against package name  (and more) to prevent
(essentially) cross-scripting attacks on contexts where NVR are used in scripting.

The *RE's are doing nothing more than limiting the character set being used currently.
It would not be hard to apply additional *RE's against, say, python package naming.

There is also RPM+SED (i.e. a PCRE sed-like embedding) intended as a better
way to do %{?dist} branding in build releases. Basically the equivalent of running

	rpm -qp --qf '%{release}'  *.rpm | sed -e 's/$/%{?dist}/'

while building, without adding dependencies on external sed(1). There are
many other usage cases for an internal/embedded find-and-replace in RPM.


73 de Jeff

More information about the pld-devel-en mailing list