mÃn 2002-09-23 klockan 22.34 skrev Graham Wilson: > > Not in my reading of python policy. As far as I can see the creation > > of a python-module package is optional. Then again the python policy > > document is pretty unreadable in this section and needs to be fixed. > > If you have issues with this way of doing things (ie. no default > > package), then please get an authoritative answer from the guys who > > maintain python-policy (and get them to make their document clearer), > > and then ask me again.
I thought them optional too, I only recently added python-pyopenssl (so recently that it's in NEW). > > I can't think of a reason why you'd want the default package (as far > > as I can see they are useless, since you have to rebuild your > > packages every time a new python version comes out anyway). As an > > alternative, tell me why you need a default package and I'll create > > one (I just don't really see the point). This I don't agree with, though. :) It definitely makes sense to have a package that works with the default Python version, less number juggling for the user. > he thought python policy was unclear on this issue. As I said above, I think it's unclear too, and should be more precise. Is it the intention that if you have pythonX.Y-foo and pythonZ.W-foo you *may*, *should* or *must* have a python-foo package? Regards, Martin
signature.asc
Description: Detta =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=E4r?= en digitalt signerad meddelandedel
