Before:
usage: %pyproject_buildrequires [-w] [-R] [-e TOXENVS] [-t] [-x EXTRAS] [-N] [REQUIREMENTS.TXT ...]
After:
usage: %pyproject_buildrequires [-x EXTRAS] [-t] [-e TOXENVS] [-w] [-R] [-N] [REQUIREMENTS.TXT ...]
The order was determined as:
0. suppressed options
1. extras, the easiest way to specify test deps (x)
2. tox related options (te)
3. build wheel, as it is provisional (w)
4. "disablers" (RN)
5. varargs are always listed last
Previous order was pretty much random.
When certain modules are deliberately not included into the built RPM,
they shouldn't be listed in the list of qualified module names which are
used by %pyproject_check_import to test importability of the
distribution.
Resolves: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2127958
Files still need to be marked as License-File to be considered %license,
but if their path in METADATA is specified relative to dist-info/licenses,
they are correctly recognised.
This makes License-Files specified by hatchling 1.9.0+ marked as %license.
Users invoking %pyproject_save_files with glob: '*' don't care about the
files in the Python package, hence it shouldn't error when no modules
are detected.
There may be legitimate reasons to create a package without Python
modules in it, hence we shouldn't be blocking this possibility.
When extension modules are built in %pyproject_buildrequires,
we need to create the package note file.
Fixes https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2097535
This is tested via python-ldap -- %pyproject_buildrequires -w fails without the fix.
Neither python-markupsafe nor python-mistune can be used as a test
because they only warn when the extension module cannot be built
because they fallback to pure Python.
Apparently, when you repeatedly run `rpmbuild -ba`, files in %_builddir are not cleaned.
This way, we at least make sure the files are unique between different NVRAs,
so 2 unrelated builds don't share the files between each other.
Keeping files contained in the build subdirectory is the more common way of doing this,
but we cannot technically do that, because we don't know what's it gonna be (before %prep).
Should be backwards compatible, as we only modify underscore-prefixed macros and %{pyproject_files},
where the exact value should not matter to the packagers.
This package is already installed -- otherwise the macro would not even exist.
However, since python3-devel has started to Require pyproject-rpm-macros,
it is no longer possible to use `repoquery --whatrequires pyproject-rpm-macros`
to get a reliable list of packages that use the macros.
This was, all packages that use %pyproject_buildrequires will BuildRequire the macros explicitly.
(In the future, we could even include a stub version of %pyproject_buildrequires
in pyproject-srpm-macros (always installed in the buildroot),
that only echoes this package,
so packagers would not need to manually BuildRequire anything at all.)
Compressed manpages have different extension than those listed in the RECORD file,
so they were not recognized when %%pyproject_save_files '+auto' flag
was provided.
To enable the path recognition, if the manpage extension matches the one
listed in brp-compres, the extension is removed, and an asterisk is now added
to the manpages filenames.
Source: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_manpages
Fixes: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2033254
`python3-devel` already requires `pyproject-rpm-macros` in Fedora and
EPEL 9. Update the usage docs to reflect this.
Signed-off-by: Hunor Csomortáni <csomh@redhat.com>
