On 10/16/2013 02:05 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
> Thomas Goirand writes:
>
>> On 10/15/2013 06:21 PM, Tristan Seligmann wrote:
>>> What sort of upstream "source code" would be using the /usr/bin
>>> wrapper at all? (I ask this question without prejudice; I can
>>> obviously imagine some ways this might
Thomas Goirand writes:
> On 10/16/2013 07:32 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
> > Patching upstream's assumptions of command names is a feature of the
> > landscape for Debian packagers. I don't consider that a reason to
> > presume ‘/usr/bin/coverage’ on Debian should refer to a
> > Python-specific tool.
>
Thomas Goirand writes:
> On 10/15/2013 06:21 PM, Tristan Seligmann wrote:
> > What sort of upstream "source code" would be using the /usr/bin
> > wrapper at all? (I ask this question without prejudice; I can
> > obviously imagine some ways this might happen, but I'm more
> > interested in the act
On 10/16/2013 07:32 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
>> Nearly all OpenStack projects are using testrepository. All of them
>> are using python-coverage.
>
> That sounds like an excellent central point to make the command name
> parameterisable: fix it in one place to match the Debian
> ‘python-coverage’ pac
Thomas Goirand writes:
> On 10/15/2013 07:04 PM, Jakub Wilk wrote:> Apparently two (mostly
> orthogonal) problems have been squeezed into a
> > single bug report:
> >
> > 1) Is the name /usr/bin/coverage appropriate?
>
> Please let's focus on providing /usr/bin/coverage.
I'm not convinced Debian
5 matches
Mail list logo
