On Sat, 2006-02-04 at 10:13 +0900, Sanghyeon Seo wrote:
> But in case of feedparser and web.py, aren't they just a single file?
> I can't blame upstream for not interested in setup.py. I'm not sure
> what Joe Wreschnig means when he says it's "unmanagable". I think
> simple dh_install is fine for a single file package.
I say this for the same reason that we use autoconf instead of a shell
script full of cps. It seems like overkill, but in the long run it's the
only thing that has the flexibility you need. If you're doing the
copying manually, it means you need to tweak the Debian install scripts
for any kind of location change. If you're using setup.py, it will
automatically follow the local Python settings -- whether that's Debian,
Ubuntu, or a local source install.
If upstream is making a Python module, that is intended to be installed
system-wide, I can't imagine why they don't want a setup.py. It's like
not wanting a makefile.
If upstream is making a Python module that they expect to be included
inside the source of other packages directly (which is not unheard of --
feedparser is often used this way), then you need to clue them in about
the problems with that (security updates, bug fixes, wasted disk space).
Even if they insist, that's not acceptable for Debian.
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
