Re: Packaging applications with extensions modules

2013-03-09 Thread Jakub Wilk
* Stefano Rivera , 2013-02-22, 23:31: - dh_python2 (which, for some reason, everyone wants to use) doesn't generate ยง3.1.1-compliant dependency for such setup. Yeah, we should fix that. Fix everyone, or just dh_python2? ;> I've just filed #702677. -- Jakub Wilk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to d

Re: Packaging applications with extensions modules

2013-02-22 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Saturday, February 23, 2013 12:24:16 AM Jakub Wilk wrote: > * Scott Kitterman , 2013-02-22, 17:56: > >>* you can ship extensions for more than one 3.x version in the > >>same private directory, thanks to tags > > > >Does dh_python3 support such setup? (I would be very surprised i

Re: Packaging applications with extensions modules

2013-02-22 Thread Jakub Wilk
* Scott Kitterman , 2013-02-22, 17:56: * you can ship extensions for more than one 3.x version in the same private directory, thanks to tags Does dh_python3 support such setup? (I would be very surprised if it did.) I gave it a try, and it appears to work, provided that upstream build system

Re: Packaging applications with extensions modules

2013-02-22 Thread Scott Kitterman
Stefano Rivera wrote: >Hi Scott (2013.02.23_00:17:30_+0200) >> >> >* you can ship extensions for more than one 3.x version in the >> >> >same private directory, thanks to tags >> >> Does dh_python3 support such setup? (I would be very surprised if >it >> >> did.) >> >You have a point. That'd be

Re: Packaging applications with extensions modules

2013-02-22 Thread Stefano Rivera
Hi Scott (2013.02.23_00:17:30_+0200) > >> >* you can ship extensions for more than one 3.x version in the > >> >same private directory, thanks to tags > >> Does dh_python3 support such setup? (I would be very surprised if it > >> did.) > >You have a point. That'd be non-trivial to support. > What'

Re: Packaging applications with extensions modules

2013-02-22 Thread Scott Kitterman
Stefano Rivera wrote: >Hi Jakub (2013.02.22_23:48:24_+0200) > >> * Stefano Rivera , 2013-02-22, 23:31: >> >* you can ship extensions for more than one 3.x version in the >> >same private directory, thanks to tags >> >> Does dh_python3 support such setup? (I would be very surprised if it >> did

Re: Packaging applications with extensions modules

2013-02-22 Thread Stefano Rivera
Hi Jakub (2013.02.22_23:48:24_+0200) > * Stefano Rivera , 2013-02-22, 23:31: > >* you can ship extensions for more than one 3.x version in the > >same private directory, thanks to tags > > Does dh_python3 support such setup? (I would be very surprised if it > did.) You have a point. That'd be no

Re: Packaging applications with extensions modules

2013-02-22 Thread Jakub Wilk
* Stefano Rivera , 2013-02-22, 23:31: * you can ship extensions for more than one 3.x version in the same private directory, thanks to tags Does dh_python3 support such setup? (I would be very surprised if it did.) -- Jakub Wilk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debia

Re: Packaging applications with extensions modules

2013-02-22 Thread Stefano Rivera
Hi Jakub (2013.02.16_14:01:58_+0200) > C) Built the modules only for the default Python version and install > them to a private directory (/usr/lib/PKGNAME/ or similar). This is > what Python Policy tells us to do. I see the following problem with > this approach: This is my preferred approach, an