On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 6:42 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> The only way to reliably know if it can be built is to do so as part of the
> package build, so you should regenerate the binary file and install that in
> your package.
In addition, removing the generated files in `debian/rules clean` an
On April 7, 2016 5:29:14 PM EDT, "Víctor Cuadrado Juan" wrote:
>I have come across an upstream that ships both the cythonized .c file
>and the .py source, on my ITP python-neovim-gui [1].
>
>On #python @freenode I have been said that shipping both files is
>standard practice, which seems to be b
On Apr 06, 2016, at 11:48 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>In my opinion either can be correct depending on the primary purpose of the
>package.
I think that's true; take it on a case-by-case basis.
In general, I like having a separate binary package for the /usr/bin script
because it can be more eas
Hello,
I would like to join the python-modules team. I am currently the
maintainer of borgbackup, and I want to package a dependency of the
unittests, pytest-benchmark. I already filed an ITP to prevent
duplicate work, in case someone else has the same idea (#820301).
I would prefer to create th
Hi Tiago,
On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 11:37:24PM -0300, Tiago Ilieve wrote:
> Thanks for taking the time to explain me this, but actually I got a
> little bit confused. Because yes, what you said is consistent with
> what I found on articles about Python packaging on wiki.d.o[1][2], but
> at the same
5 matches
Mail list logo
