Re: [Pkg-bluetooth-maintainers] pybluez
On Sun, Feb 26, 2006 at 01:46:43PM +0100, Michal Čihař wrote: > > but yes, I would consider adding a python-bluetooth metapackage which > > depends on > > python-bluez, just to be consistent with the recent bluez/bluetooth renaming > > stuff. > > If you want python-bluez, it should be reverse, quoting from Debian > Python Policy: > > A package with a name python-foo will always provide the module foo for > the default Debian Python version of the distribution. mmh that's tricky, CC'ing debian-python. my rationale behind python-bluez is that bluez is not the only bluetooth stack for linux, indeed the bluetooth metapackage is provided to support not only bluez. I'm not sure what is the right way to go for python-bluetooth, following the same scheme as packages it would be: python-bluetooth: depends python-bluez (and possibly others) python-bluez: depends python2.3-bluez (or python2.4-bluez RSN) this would require every python bluetooth stack binding to provide the "bluetooth" module (thus honouring the python policy) and of course being uninstallable at the same time (which IMO is fine, as one wants to use only one bluetooth stack a time) thanks, filippo -- Filippo Giunchedi PGP key: 0x6B79D401 random quote follows: What a strange illusion it is to suppose that beauty is goodness. -- Lev Tolstoj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Pkg-bluetooth-maintainers] pybluez
Le dimanche 26 février 2006 à 14:07 +0100, Filippo Giunchedi a écrit : > > A package with a name python-foo will always provide the module foo for > > the default Debian Python version of the distribution. > > mmh that's tricky, CC'ing debian-python. > > my rationale behind python-bluez is that bluez is not the only bluetooth stack > for linux, indeed the bluetooth metapackage is provided to support not only > bluez. > I'm not sure what is the right way to go for python-bluetooth, following the > same scheme as packages it would be: > > python-bluetooth: depends python-bluez (and possibly others) > python-bluez: depends python2.3-bluez (or python2.4-bluez RSN) > > this would require every python bluetooth stack binding to provide the > "bluetooth" module (thus honouring the python policy) and of course being > uninstallable at the same time (which IMO is fine, as one wants to use only > one > bluetooth stack a time) Wouldn't it more understandable with virtual packages? For example: python-bluez provides: python-bluetooth and conflicts: python-bluetooth python2.X-bluez provides: and conflicts: python2.X-bluetooth Regards, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: [Pkg-bluetooth-maintainers] pybluez
On Sun, Feb 26, 2006 at 04:17:29PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Wouldn't it more understandable with virtual packages? For example: > python-bluez provides: python-bluetooth and conflicts: python-bluetooth > python2.X-bluez provides: and conflicts: python2.X-bluetooth if this is okay with python packaging policy (especially 2.3 "module packages names" because python2.3-bluez won't provide module "bluez" but "bluetooth") I'm fine with it. filippo -- Filippo Giunchedi PGP key: 0x6B79D401 random quote follows: UNIX IS user friendly, it is just selective who his friends are. signature.asc Description: Digital signature