On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 03:21:14 Barry Warsaw wrote:
> Does it make any sense to split the source package into multiple binary
> packages? Then the library bits would live in python-xpra (and maybe
> someday, python3-xpra ) and the program part would live in xpra.
One day it could be done (perhaps wh
On Sep 18, 2012, at 05:23 PM, أحمد المحمودي wrote:
>On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 06:27:21PM +1000, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
>> Although Xpra is mainly an application its modules can be used by frontends
>> like "winswitch", packaged by yours truly. In particular winswitch have an
>> ugly workaround [1]
On 18 September 2012 18:00, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> At the moment I can't recall a good example but there are some exceptions like
> when package in mainly used as application.
IPython is packaged as 'ipython', 'ipython3', etc., and it also
includes a public module.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 01:23:39 أحمد المحمودي wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 06:27:21PM +1000, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> > Although Xpra is mainly an application its modules can be used by
> > frontends like "winswitch", packaged by yours truly. In particular
> > winswitch have an ugly wor
Hello,
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 06:27:21PM +1000, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> Although Xpra is mainly an application its modules can be used by frontends
> like "winswitch", packaged by yours truly. In particular winswitch have an
> ugly workaround [1] to find private Xpra modules. This is something
Dear Ahmed,
At the moment xpra installs its modules privately to /usr/lib/xpra/xpra.
While this path appears to be incorrect due to unnecessary nesting we have a
bigger problem with hiding xpra modules which should be exposed publicly
because Xpra is both application and a library.
Although Xp
6 matches
Mail list logo
