* Jakub Wilk , 2009-05-29, 21:01:
What is the correct umbrella to package a plugin for a Python
application under? DPMT or PAPT?
And, is there some recommended binary package naming scheme for such
packages?
I am asking those questions, because I intend[1] to package hg-git[2],
a plugin for
Jakub Wilk escribió:
> Well, technically Mercurial extensions *are* public Python modules. You
> can import one into your own Python program and fiddle with it. Most
> users would never do such a thing, yet it is perfectly feasible and can
> be proven useful.
Ok, I misunderstood you. I thought hg-
2009/5/29 Jakub Wilk :
> Hello,
>
> What is the correct umbrella to package a plugin for a Python application
> under? DPMT or PAPT?
>
Depends how you package it. If you "inject" it into the app's private
modules folder eg /usr/share/APPLICATION/plugins/ then I
think it is safe to go into PAPT. If
* Emilio Pozuelo Monfort , 2009-05-30, 01:42:
What is the correct umbrella to package a plugin for a Python
application under? DPMT or PAPT?
PAPT, since it's not a module
And, is there some recommended binary package naming scheme for such
packages?
Nope, there's only one for modules, but t
Emilio Pozuelo Monfort writes:
> Jakub Wilk escribió:
> > What is the correct umbrella to package a plugin for a Python
> > application under? DPMT or PAPT?
>
> PAPT, since it's not a module
Hmm? I can't see a reasonable way to package a Python application
plug-in that *isn't* a module (or a Py
Jakub Wilk escribió:
> Hello,
Hi Jakub,
> What is the correct umbrella to package a plugin for a Python
> application under? DPMT or PAPT?
PAPT, since it's not a module
> And, is there some recommended binary package naming scheme for such
> packages?
Nope, there's only one for modules, but th
6 matches
Mail list logo
