Éric Araujo <mer...@netwok.org> added the comment: Hello
Thanks for clarifying your point. Note that I had quickly tested dh_make in a near-empty directory before posting, and the only question I got asked was the type of the package (library, many libraries, program, etc). But I’ve just realized that I have two dh_make-related variables set in my environment, plus maybe config files, so a typical user may have more questions to answer, which is annoying if the setup.cfg¹ already has them. And to be honest, the question about the type of the package is not simple if you’re not fluent with the Policy, so if Distutils2 can answer that thanks to its knowledge, all the better. I therefore agree with you :) One thing I’m attached to: The name of the command should respect existing conventions. Entirely new concepts get dedicated names (e.g. “check” and “test”), but commands fitting in the areas of sdist or bdist should say so in their name. How about sdist_debian? It may be useful to precise something at this point: You may read about both “debian” and “Debian” packages. “debian” or “.deb” or “debs” are binary distributions that use the file formats defined by Debian, whereas “Debian” packages are binary distributions that use these formats, conform to the Debian policy, are tested on lintian.debian.org and piuparts.debian.org, and most importantly, are scrutinized for Debian Free Software Guidelines compliance. That’s why I, for one, never uses third-party deb packages or apt repos: If it’s going to be installed system-wide, I want a verified Debian package. HTH ¹ Not a typo, just an anticipation of PEP 390 ;) Kind regards ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue1054967> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
