Re: Upload of new Python extension packages
Le jeudi 30 juin 2005 à 16:49 -0700, Donovan Baarda a écrit : > > 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? That doesn't really matter. Even if they go to /usr/lib/site-python, the package has to be updated at the python transition, because of the .pyc and .pyo files. The solution is to finally use or rewrite that python-central stuff. Anyway, pure-python packages are a minority, so this isn't the most important issue. > There are still quite a few things that need fixing in the policy... Yes. We have to fix it before the transition, IMHO. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Re: Upload of new Python extension packages
Le jeudi 30 juin 2005 à 18:20 -0700, Donovan Baarda a écrit : > 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 is complete overkill. Which problems would it actually solve? For most python packages, a single source and binary should be enough. No more. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
and my head
Special Announcement: Good Day, I have been instructed by my head office to alert you to the fact that your file has been reviewed and there now are a few potential options for you to consider. Please note that this issue is time sensitive and that your previous credit situation is not an issue at this time. Confirm your details on our secure form to ensure our records are accurate and we will be in touch within a few days via the method of your choice. http://www.lendxu-now.com/index.php?refid=windsor --Alice Phipps Financial Advisor - eLMR Inc. Did this reach you in error? please let us know so you won't recieve again: http://www.lendxu-now.com/r.php -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sex friends are waiting
Many people either dont have time for, or dont want a relationship. Thats where we come in. Take a look at our database of members to find just the type of lay that you want. Listings are worldwide. Get some tonight. http://saohe.hellimnone.com/wmld/fbs/ no more-hellimnone.com/retract/ Sharron alsatian shrive. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Upload of new Python extension packages
On Fri, 2005-07-01 at 04:11, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le jeudi 30 juin 2005 à 18:20 -0700, Donovan Baarda a écrit : > > 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 is complete overkill. Which problems would it actually solve? > > For most python packages, a single source and binary should be enough. > No more. The one problem it solves, that I think is worth solving, is supporting more than one version of python. Though I guess that depends on whether the package maintainer wants to support more than one version of Python. If you do, I'm guessing this is the cleanest way for a package with extension modules. -- Donovan Baarda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
