New RPM spec files. Was re: [omniORB] request for dropping site-packages/PortableServer* from omniorbpy

[Duncan Grisby]

On Wednesday 19 November, Thomas Lockhart wrote:

> Seems to be OK. I made the minimum changes to get the tarball and 
> directory names right in the spec file, and the packages built and 
> installed cleanly. A simple test case ran correctly.

Good. Thanks for checking.

[...]
> In principle, we could probably have all files contained in 
> site-packages/omniORB exposed via omniORB.pth, which allows us to leave 
> out the remaining top level files altogether. Seems cleaner to me, 
> *except* that python only respects these .pth files when they are 
> underneath the default python library installation area. Which they will 
> likely be for RPMs, but someone *could* rebuild them to install into 
> another area which would then not be able to use the .pth file at all.

I don't particularly like that idea, since it would expose internal
bits of omniORB to the top-level module space. Some of them have
pretty generic names like codesets, any and URI, and it would be bad
for people to accidentally get them instead of something else they
expected. And, as you say, it would only be suitable for the RPM
install (and other package installs) since many people install
omniORBpy in places other than the main Python installation.

Cheers,

Duncan.

-- 
 -- Duncan Grisby         --
  -- duncan at grisby.org     --
   -- http://www.grisby.org --