Re: RFS: pygpgme (2nd attempt)

[Bernd Zeimetz]

Hi Miguel,

what's the status of the package? I'd like to ues it soon :D

Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> [Miguel Di Ciurcio Filho, 2009-07-14]
>> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/pygpgme/pygpgme_0.1+bzr20090707-1.dsc
> 
> * replace python-dev with python-dev-all and build extensions for all
>   supported Python versions (pyversion -rv) (it will be easier once
>   #520834 will be fixed)

Fixed, use debhelper >= 7.3.5 currently in experimental

> * how about adding -dbg package?

supported by the debhlper version above, too.


> * don't depend on setup.py's executable bit (i.e. add "python ")

or just use dh, see above :)

Cheers,

Bernd

-- 
 Bernd Zeimetz Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 GPG Fingerprints: 06C8 C9A2 EAAD E37E 5B2C BE93 067A AD04 C93B FF79
   ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

SONAME for python modules is bad?

[Steve M. Robbins]

Hi,

Recently, Mathieu Malaterre wrote to say that having a SOVERSION on a
python module is wrong, with reference to an oblique comment from
Josselin Mouette [1].

Is this true?  What is the rationale for not versioning these shared
objects?

Is there any "more official" document that mandates this?  For
example, the python policy?

Thanks,
-Steve


[1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=378049#25



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature