Le jeudi 24 août 2006 à 17:56 +0300, Lars Wirzenius a écrit : > Round and round we go. > > The people writing the dh_* snippets insist that the details of how they > work, such as locations in which Python modules should actually be > installed, can't be put into the Policy. The Policy editor, and those of > use who don't want to use debhelper, insist that writing policy based on > debhelper tools is not acceptable.
Let me rephrase it: the internals of python-support, and how it helps implementing the python policy, are developed in the python-support documentation. They don't need to be part of the policy and they have nothing to do with debhelper either. > This has now been going on for long enough that I conclude that the > Python policy pushers really do intend to make using debhelper a Policy > requirement for any package containing any Python code. I can't speak for others, but python-support provides pysupport-movemodules and pysupport-parseversions to separate the debhelper snippet from the actual abstraction code. (BTW, for a similar problematic that involves more than a hundred packages, nobody ever asked me how to make a package using GConf without using dh_gconf. Which means the GConf policy has never been written out but is currently defined by the dh_gconf behavior.) -- .''`. Josselin Mouette /\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
