Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's probably overkill. If users are likely to install EITHER > python2.1-xmms or python2.2-xmms but not both, then repeat the docs in > each and forget about python-xmms-common (the license needs to be in > every binary package anyway).
Hmmm. The scheme I described already implemented, but I am willing to change it for a better one, if any. No, users are likely to install BOTH python2.1-xmms and python2.2-xmms, because if they write a Python program using these bindings (to libxmms), they will probably want to test it on several Python versions. For the license, I thought a symlink would be enough but this means that the .deb taken alone has no license. Perhaps I should have a real directory in /usr/share/doc for each package containing the license and a symlink or README.Debian pointing to the documentation. > At that point, python-xmms is probably overkill too. Well, it is the standard way for users to have their Python add-on packages automatically follow Debian default Python (same for other Python programs using these bindings and not particularly tied to a specific Python version). Thanks for your comments. -- Florent -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
