Re: packaging (python module)

On 4/20/25 1:46 PM, Bruce Dubbs ([email protected] via 
blfs-dev Mailing List) wrote:
> About a week ago I had to add the Python module 'packaging' to LFS in 
> order to build 'wheel'. Currently we also have it in BLFS. It is 
> mentioned for glib2, three packages in Python Dependencies and five 
> packages in Python Modules.
>
> The question is whether we should remove 'packaging' from BLFS. We do 
> have several packages in both books: vim, libcap, and Python, but 
> those are there to provide extra functionality that can't be built in 
> LFS without a lot of additional dependencies.
>
> Generally BLFS depends on all the packages in LFS being present, but 
> the transition from BLFS to LFS may be a problem for some users, 
> especially if the package needs to updated.
>
> What do you think?
>
>   -- Bruce
>
For consistency, it really needs to be removed from BLFS. We've done the 
same with Jinja2/MarkupSafe in the past as well. There's a note in the 
Python3 page that contains a list of packages to rebuild from BLFS, and 
we'll need to add packaging into that list.

That being said though, an exception might be good in this case, given 
the amount of things that use it.

- Doug

-- 
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/sympa/info/blfs-dev
Unsubscribe: See the above information page