Executable files part of library
Interestingly enough distutils doesn't keep executable bits on libraries, and this causes lintian to complain: W: python-pyggy: script-not-executable ./usr/lib/python2.3/site-packages/pyggy/dfa.py N: N: This file starts with the #! sequence that marks interpreted scripts, N: but it is not executable. N: W: python-pyggy: script-not-executable ./usr/lib/python2.3/site-packages/pyggy/dot.py W: python-pyggy: script-not-executable ./usr/lib/python2.3/site-packages/pyggy/lexer.py W: python-pyggy: script-not-executable ./usr/lib/python2.3/site-packages/pyggy/nfa.py W: python-pyggy: script-not-executable ./usr/lib/python2.3/site-packages/pyggy/pyggy.py W: python-pyggy: script-not-executable ./usr/lib/python2.3/site-packages/pyggy/pylly.py W: python-pyggy: script-not-executable ./usr/lib/python2.3/site-packages/pyggy/slrgram.py W: python-pyggy: script-not-executable ./usr/lib/python2.3/site-packages/pyggy/srgram.py W: python-pyggy: script-not-executable ./usr/lib/python2.3/site-packages/pyggy/util.py How should this be resolved? Manually putting the executable bits on the files before packing? Removing '#!.*' in the mentioned files? Is there a policy for this? /M -- Magnus Therning(OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://magnus.therning.org/ Don't bother just to be better than your contemporaries or predecessors. Try to be better than yourself. -- William Faulkner signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Newbie at packaging looking for feedback
I have just packaged Gnosis-Utils (http://freshmeat.net/projects/gnosisxml/) for Debian. It all looks good to me, but I'd really like it if someone more experienced than me would take a look at it and point any mistakes I've made. Finding a mentor/sponsor would be the next step... You can find the package (binary and source) at http://magnus.therning.org/gnosis/ Thanks, Magnus -- Magnus Therning(OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://magnus.therning.org/ Finagle's Sixth Law: Don't believe in miracles -- rely on them. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Python Packaging Question
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 02:57:15PM -0600, Amr Nasr wrote:
>Hi all.
>I have a question for anybody who can give me an answer about
>Debian Packaging *Python* Scripts if somebody did practice that.
> As i am really in bad need of that .
> i compress my files uisng *.tar.gz* and then convert it to a debian
>package using
> *Alien* package converter for converting to *.deb .
> For changing the destination install directory i can do that through
> dpkg -i --instdir= /mydir/ mypackage.deb
> for making the script to run automatically when it gets installed
>that part i am still missing . I would appreciate if anybody have an
>answer for that question.
>* Amr
I have used auto{conf,make} for packaging Python. It should be straight
forward to make a Debian package out of something like that, right?
/M
--
Magnus Therning(OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://magnus.therning.org/
Don't bother just to be better than your contemporaries or predecessors.
Try to be better than yourself.
-- William Faulkner
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Need sponsor for python-gnosis
I have now packages python-gnosis (Gnosis_Utils) to the best of my abilities, following the packaging guidelines, as well as the python guidelines as I understand them. Anyone up for uploading it? ITP: #227552 (http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=227552) Available at http://magnus.therning.org/gnosis/ /M -- Magnus Therning(OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://magnus.therning.org/ Advice is what we ask for when we already know the answer but wish we didn't. -- Erica Jong signature.asc Description: Digital signature
