Hi Nick,
Am 03.04.22 um 09:58 schrieb Dominik George:
Hi Carsten,
Or is there a way to get such packages build without a need for PDM to be
around?
This should really not matter at all when packaging for Debian. The
source tarball should include a setup.cfg or setup.py file (i.e. be a
regular Python sdist), and if not developing on the package, you
should never meet PDM.
yeah, but upstream isn't shipping one or both files, it only ships a
file pyproject.toml. And switched from Poetry to PDM recently
https://github.com/mkdocstrings/autorefs/commit/85f3920ec153e6aa3c206475977b8666ac340504
If the upstream sdist is not installable without PDM, this is
probably an upstream bug; but my guess is that you chose a Git export
instead of a real sdist as orig.tar.gz.
No, I did pick up the tagged version 0.4.1 as tarball from GitHub as
usual to start with as I'm aware of this trap.
https://github.com/mkdocstrings/autorefs/tags
I've compared the tarball from GH with the file from PyPi, the sdist on
PyPi contains even less files than the GH tarball, but also no setup.*
files.
https://pypi.org/project/mkdocs-autorefs/#files
If helpful I can upload my current WIP scratch status to my namespace on
Salsa.
So far I've read about PDM the past hours, it's quite new yes, but more
upstream projects will switch or start with this package management
system I guess. So somehow the Debian packaging of Python libraries will
need to deal with this.
--
Regards
Carsten
