Re: python2.3/python2.4/python packages
On 2006-02-10 18:12, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le vendredi 10 février 2006 à 16:46 +0100, Pavel Šimerda a écrit : > > > For a module that has few or zero reverse dependencies, there should be > > > one single package, named python-foo, containing the module for the > > > default python version. Anything else is just cluttering the archive. > > > > You think it's better to force users to a specific version... I thought > > MOST of the packages were in two binary versions (2.3 and 2.4) with one > > dummy package dependant on the default. It seems you don't like peple > > who'd like to make their own packages do you? > > I don't like people who like to provide several packages just for the > pleasure of providing several packages. Not an anwer at all. I mean someone would like to package his program or tool and make it dependant on kid0.8 templates and python2.4. So he sets the dependency: kid (>= 0.8) and python2.4 currently, kid is installed in python 2.3 and the dependency just fails. I hate broken dependencies ;-) as much as any user does When you need python2.4 (not only 2.3) with cherrypy2.1 (not only 2.0), all works great. You set it dependent on python2.4-cherrypy2.1 which depends on python2.4, and is installed in its structure. In these cases I don't even need python-* type of packages... because I know which versions I support in my programs. I quite like meta-packages, that make dependencies work better. I allways thought this is a strong point of APT. > > > I don't mean it bad... I already switched to setup.py installation > > instead of apt so I can use python2.4 now. I'm just trying to make things > > better for other users. > > You should think of comparing the value added by providing several > packages and the cost of cluttering the archive and confusing users. Ask > yourself whether this is worth the complication. I am thinking about it... as I was one of the confused users - confused that python-* is sometimes a metapackage and sometimes a real package. (Not from the total number of packages related to python.) And because i was looking at python package called kid... expected python-kid but that was just 'kid'... searched for 2.4 version but there is none And also confused by the fact that python2.3 and python2.4 families are not at all complete as I expected.
RFS: python-harvestman - a multithreaded web crawler
(Though I realize that Debian Mentors is the right place to look for sponsors, I thought that it wouldn't be wrong to look for someone having interest on this list. Sorry if this is a mistake.) I'd like you to see HarvestMan (http://harvestman.freezope.org) (ITP bug #352012): Description: HarvestMan can be used to download files from websites, according to a number of user-specified rules. The latest version of HarvestMan supports as much as 60 plus customization options. HarvestMan is a console (command-line) application. HarvestMan is the only public-domain, multithreaded web-crawler program written in the Python language. HarvestMan is released under the GNU General Public License. The package is quite small and simple. The current tarball is available at http://download.berlios.de/harvestman/HarvestMan-1.4.6.tar.bz2 (< 100KB) and my diff is at: http://www.ee.iitm.ac.in/~ee03b091/debpkgs/python-harvestman_1.4.6-1.diff.gz and other files are in the same directory http://www.ee.iitm.ac.in/~ee03b091/debpkgs/ The current status is, that I have a source package which generates python2.3-harvestman, python2.4-harvestman and python-harvestman. python-harvestman depends on the 2.3 version and ships with a symbolic link to the executable script present in the site-packages directory. I have also outlined the advantage of using the 2.4 package in README.Debian. I have also spent a LOT of time in writing a man page for the software from the documentation available online in a Word document. Now, the only issue which irks me is that the man page is written using the latest available docs, which is outdated. Though all stuff remains same, the configuration is now an XML file, while the documentation assumes that it is in a plain text file. Though one can adapt to the required settings from the manual, and the software has reverse compatibility, I just wanted to make sure. I have mentioned this in the README.Debian, and suggested ways of getting over this. If any other issues arise, please tell me, so that I can make corrections as appropriate. Thanks. Kumar -- Kumar Appaiah, 462, Jamuna Hostel, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai - 600 036 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
