IMO rpm is right and the test is wrong. It does not make
> any sense to require a running X just to check that pygtk is
> installed.
In principle, I certainly agree with you. In practice, I think this
is harder than it sounds, because several of us have tried to make a
build/configure system that 1) works and 2) doesn't require X, and
obviously we have failed. Whle it certainly must be possible, we
clearly haven't found the right apporaches for GTK* and Tk*.
>> The mysterious part is why bdist_rpm /used/ to work for mpl as
>> of 0.83.2. It could be either that a change in mpl's build
>> made it more sensitive to X11 issues than before, or that
>> Fedora3 updated its rpm build scripts between those days and
>> today, and that now they do this 'unset DISPLAY'. But given
>> that on Ubuntu and Mandriva it's working OK, I wouldn't worry
>> too much about it. Having that feedback was a good outcome of
>> this thread, even if I can't upgrade in our lab
> The usual trick in rpms it to require a nest X to test for
> pygtk.
I'm not sure I understand this. We have the following
if BUILD_GTK:
try:
import gtk
except ImportError:
print 'GTK requires pygtk'
BUILD_GTK=0
except RuntimeError:
print 'pygtk present but import failed'
The ImportError is designed to catch the case where pygtk is not
present and the RuntimeError is designed to warn but not fail if X is
not present. I'll do some testing tonight to see if I can isolate
where this is failing.
JDH