On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 02:05:32AM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> The reason I said site-packages is the _right_ way, is it makes mailman
> modules usable from other applications. However, I agree that we shouldn't
> _require_ application specific modules to be in site-packages, particularly
> when
On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 05:21:34PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Donovan Baarda writes:
> > > I wouldn't call moving some files the packaging hell, and I have yet to
> > > understand why /usr/lib/mailman is so much saner or better than
> > > /usr/lib/python/site-packages/mailman.
> > > I looked in
Donovan Baarda writes:
> > I wouldn't call moving some files the packaging hell, and I have yet to
> > understand why /usr/lib/mailman is so much saner or better than
> > /usr/lib/python/site-packages/mailman.
> > I looked into the mailman package. It should not be that much work to
> > adapt it to
On Tue, Oct 01, 2002 at 12:23:38AM +1200, Carey Evans wrote:
> Donovan Baarda wrote:
[...]
> It might also be nice to have separate files that list the directories
> or source files to compile for each package, and have python-central
> call compileall itself, but I guess this is a separate issue
Donovan Baarda wrote:
But this is redundant... if the package is installed, the corresponding *.py
files _should_ be unpacked. How is testing for the existance of a file any
better indication than testing for installation of the package?
True... I think I'll try to blame my flawed argument on lack
On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 08:19:49AM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
| On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 08:13:23AM +1200, Carey Evans wrote:
| > It also makes it easier for users to modify if a Python package's
| > dependencies are incorrect, and it stops compiling under a newer version
| > of Python, making
On Sun, Sep 29, 2002 at 05:51:30PM +0200, Bastian Kleineidam wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 29, 2002 at 11:29:02PM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> > I've just had a look at this and it looks good. It perfectly meets the
> > requirement of allowing pure python module packages to support multiple
> > pythonX.Y
On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 08:13:23AM +1200, Carey Evans wrote:
> Donovan Baarda wrote:
>
> >finding all packages that depend on "python" is non-trivial using only
> >dpkg.
> >Something like dpkg-awk, grep-dctrl, or python-apt make it much easier, but
> >do we want to depend on them? The old "regist
Donovan Baarda wrote:
finding all packages that depend on "python" is non-trivial using only dpkg.
Something like dpkg-awk, grep-dctrl, or python-apt make it much easier, but
do we want to depend on them? The old "registry" idea would have made this a
little easier, but I still prefer using the dpk
On Sun, Sep 29, 2002 at 11:29:02PM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> I've just had a look at this and it looks good. It perfectly meets the
> requirement of allowing pure python module packages to support multiple
> pythonX.Y python packages simultaniously.
>
> The only problem is we are still missin
On Sun, Sep 29, 2002 at 12:26:30AM +0200, Bastian Kleineidam wrote:
> Hi,
>
> uploaded the new version 0.4 at
> http://people.debian.org/~calvin/python-central/
>
> python-central (0.4) unstable; urgency=low
>
> * renamed register-python-package to python-register, this way
> its prefixed
11 matches
Mail list logo
