Upload of new Python extension packages
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello all, right now I have a package for ElementTidy [1] in my private repository [2], which I am going to upload to Debian one day (either as a DD or via a sponsor). My question is, whether I should delay the upload till after Python 2.3 is released or just happily go on and take into account the python2.3-elementtidy package being removed in some months/weeks/years/releases? There are not too many users, and a link to my repo is in the wnpp bug, therefore people can use the package already. thanks Torsten [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=315544 [2] http://diotavelli.net/files/deb/ - -- Torsten Marek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ID: A244C858 -- FP: 1902 0002 5DFC 856B F146 894C 7CC5 451E A244 C858 Keyserver: subkeys.pgp.net -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCxEiEfMVFHqJEyFgRAgnjAJsFCxk579T2Jh5Ce3ZlAZ3e7Cp7WgCfVvpB 8hLtJCFL3OTc6MnigeWoK80= =TzPS -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Upload of new Python extension packages
Le jeudi 30 juin 2005 à 21:31 +0200, Torsten Marek a écrit : > right now I have a package for ElementTidy [1] in my private repository [2], > which I am going to upload to Debian one day (either as a DD or via a > sponsor). > My question is, whether I should delay the upload till after Python 2.3 is > released or just happily go on and take into account the python2.3-elementtidy > package being removed in some months/weeks/years/releases? > There are not too many users, and a link to my repo is in the wnpp bug, > therefore people can use the package already. Please, don't use the python2.X-foo scheme for such a small package. You only need a single python-foo package, built against the default python version. It eases transitions a lot, and avoids unnecessary cluttering the archive. Regards, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Upload of new Python extension packages
On Thu, 2005-06-30 at 14:21, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le jeudi 30 juin 2005 à 21:31 +0200, Torsten Marek a écrit : > > right now I have a package for ElementTidy [1] in my private repository [2], > > which I am going to upload to Debian one day (either as a DD or via a > > sponsor). > > My question is, whether I should delay the upload till after Python 2.3 is > > released or just happily go on and take into account the > > python2.3-elementtidy > > package being removed in some months/weeks/years/releases? > > There are not too many users, and a link to my repo is in the wnpp bug, > > therefore people can use the package already. > > Please, don't use the python2.X-foo scheme for such a small package. You > only need a single python-foo package, built against the default python > version. It eases transitions a lot, and avoids unnecessary cluttering > the archive. And should pure-python modules go into /usr/lib/site-python, or /usr/lib/python2.3/site-packages? The first means the package will not need fixing when we transition to 2.4, but the second is what is documented in the python-policy. There are still quite a few things that need fixing in the policy... -- Donovan Baarda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Upload of new Python extension packages
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Donovan Baarda schrieb: > On Thu, 2005-06-30 at 14:21, Josselin Mouette wrote: > >>Le jeudi 30 juin 2005 à 21:31 +0200, Torsten Marek a écrit : >> >>>right now I have a package for ElementTidy [1] in my private repository [2], >>>which I am going to upload to Debian one day (either as a DD or via a >>>sponsor). >>>My question is, whether I should delay the upload till after Python 2.3 is >>>released or just happily go on and take into account the >>>python2.3-elementtidy >>>package being removed in some months/weeks/years/releases? >>>There are not too many users, and a link to my repo is in the wnpp bug, >>>therefore people can use the package already. >> >>Please, don't use the python2.X-foo scheme for such a small package. You >>only need a single python-foo package, built against the default python >>version. It eases transitions a lot, and avoids unnecessary cluttering >>the archive. I think I'll wait until the transition is done, then. ElementTidy depends on ElementTree, which is a package for multiple Python versions right now, but could be put into /usr/lib/site-python (it's Python-only). > > > And should pure-python modules go into /usr/lib/site-python, or > /usr/lib/python2.3/site-packages? ElementTidy contains a C extension module. > > The first means the package will not need fixing when we transition to > 2.4, but the second is what is documented in the python-policy. > > There are still quite a few things that need fixing in the policy... > Is something out yet? Any ideas how to deal with these problems? greetings Torsten - -- Torsten Marek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ID: A244C858 -- FP: 1902 0002 5DFC 856B F146 894C 7CC5 451E A244 C858 Keyserver: subkeys.pgp.net -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCxIoLfMVFHqJEyFgRAgc2AJ9OvsKE+HA+DQU36GCPBXSn/xSgPgCeIWBZ MpINATejMdY3Ti/vCGc9WOM= =Go0p -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Upload of new Python extension packages
On Thu, 2005-06-30 at 17:10, Torsten Marek wrote: [...] > ElementTidy contains a C extension module. I don't know what the current upstream favored approach with extension modules is. I suggest (a bit out of the blue, in no way yet endorsed by anyone) have two source packages; pythonX.Y-foo (where X.Y is really "X.Y", not "2.3") that generates the multiple binary packages python2.2-foo, python2.3-foo, python2.4-foo, etc. It should build depend on each corresponding python2.2-dev, python2.3-dev, python2.4-dev etc. python-foo, which generates the single dummy binary package python-foo with the appropriate dependencies to tie it to the current default python. This way, when python goes from 2.3 to 2.4, you only need to update the python-foo source package, and the pythonX.Y-foo source package and all it's binaries doesn't need to be updated. Note that this is kind of what Python itself does; it has a python-defaults source package that builds the python package, and the python2.3 source package that builds the python2.3 binaries. I have a feeling that the current python maintainers are pushing towards only supporting a single version of Python, so they will hate this suggestion. However, I think supporting multiple versions is very desirable, and think this is probably the best way to handle it for extension modules. -- Donovan Baarda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Looking for cheap high-quality software?
Any Software.. get rush undr $15-$99.. http://soxqci.9gdou8r2oj9y6sr.pearlylj.net If you're not happy without it, you'll never be happy with it. A hen is only an egg's way of making another egg. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
