Re: Upstream Makefile, debian/rules, eggs, building and installing

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Ben Finney wrote: > How should the Debian packaging files interact with this? Examples > I've seen for using python-central have the egg being built in the > Debian-specific debian/rules targets, but this is clearly duplication > if the upstream Makefile already builds an egg.

Re: Upstream Makefile, debian/rules, eggs, building and installing

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Ben Finney wrote: > > How should the Debian packaging files interact with this? Examples > > I've seen for using python-central have the egg being built in the > > Debian-specific debian/rules targets, but this is clearly duplicatio

[RFC] hijacking of python-soappy

[ Please Cc:-me on replies, I'm not subscribed to d-python ] Hi all, python-soappy has been maintained by NMUs for the last 3 years. Since I needed the new upstream release (which integrates 2 patches from the team I'm working with), after discussing the issue on #debian-python I decided to hij

Re: Upstream Makefile, debian/rules, eggs, building and installing

Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Ben Finney wrote: > > How should the Debian packaging files interact with this? Examples > > I've seen for using python-central have the egg being built in the > > Debian-specific debian/rules targets, but this is clearly > > dupli

Proposed update to the python policy

Hi, I think it's time to update the python policy with the progress that has been made in how we build python packages. The proposed diff is attached. In summary it includes: * the deprecation of the "current" keyword; * making Provides: meaningful in the case of inter-module d

Re: Proposed update to the python policy

Le mercredi 21 mars 2007 à 20:22 +0100, Josselin Mouette a écrit : > I think it's time to update the python policy with the progress that has > been made in how we build python packages. The proposed diff is > attached. In summary it includes: > * the deprecation of the "current" keyword; >

Re: Proposed update to the python policy

[Josselin Mouette, 21.03.2007] > * the deprecation of the "current" keyword; "current" keyword is deprecated? Why? I'm using it a lot and I like it... -- -=[ Piotr Ozarowski ]=- -=[ http://www.ozarowski.pl ]=- pgpeuiDfwvZtU.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: Proposed update to the python policy

On Wed, Mar 21, 2007, Josselin Mouette wrote: > I think it's time to update the python policy with the progress that has > been made in how we build python packages. The proposed diff is > attached. In summary it includes: > * the deprecation of the "current" keyword; > * making Provide

module package naming

Hi, the debian python policy states that module packages should be named python-foo, foo being the module name. I intend to package PySyck, which contains the module/package 'syck', which is also in python-syck (AFAICT PySyck is basically a fork of the upstream bindings). Would python-pysyck be

Re: Proposed update to the python policy

On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 08:28:47PM +0100, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: > [Josselin Mouette, 21.03.2007] > > * the deprecation of the "current" keyword; > > "current" keyword is deprecated? Why? I'm using it a lot and I like > it... What are you using it for exactly ? I mean, please give an exam

Re: Proposed update to the python policy

[Pierre Habouzit, 21.03.2007] > On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 08:28:47PM +0100, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: > > "current" keyword is deprecated? Why? I'm using it a lot and I like > > it... > > What are you using it for exactly ? I mean, please give an example, > with an actual package, that would be okay.

Re: Proposed update to the python policy

On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 09:25:52PM +0100, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: > [Pierre Habouzit, 21.03.2007] > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 08:28:47PM +0100, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: > > > "current" keyword is deprecated? Why? I'm using it a lot and I like > > > it... > > > > What are you using it for exactly ?

Is supermarket

Experience a Charging Bull CEO AMERICA INC Sym-CEOA Currently : 6 Cents, CHEAP!!! Add this to your radar AN ALL AMERICAN COMPANY Get IN Before the rush TOMORROW you or anything,'' Iverson said. ''It just feels good. It just feels like . For once, it was the opposition that did both. Notes: I

Re: Proposed update to the python policy

[Pierre Habouzit, 21.03.2007] > On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 09:25:52PM +0100, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: > > it's useful for Python applications that need specific Python version. > > > > f.e. if current Python version is 2.4 and my app. will work only with > > python2.5 and above, I can Build-depend on p

Re: Proposed update to the python policy

On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 08:22:32PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > I think it's time to update the python policy with the progress that has > been made in how we build python packages. The proposed diff is > attached. In summary it includes: > * the deprecation of the "current" keyword; So

Re: Proposed update to the python policy

Le mercredi 21 mars 2007 à 14:44 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit : > On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 08:22:32PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > > I think it's time to update the python policy with the progress that has > > been made in how we build python packages. The proposed diff is > > attached. In s

Re: Proposed update to the python policy

On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 10:47:37PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le mercredi 21 mars 2007 à 14:44 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit : > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 08:22:32PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > > I think it's time to update the python policy with the progress that has > > > been made

Re: Proposed update to the python policy

[Steve Langasek, 21.03.2007] > So with current deprecated, what is the solution for a package which wants > to build a single binary extension for the current python version in a > package named python-foo, with no support for other versions of python > returned by pyversions -s? I think depending

Re: Proposed update to the python policy

Le mercredi 21 mars 2007 à 14:51 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit : > On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 10:47:37PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > If this is a public extension, this goes completely against the spirit > > of the policy and should not be allowed. It just means more packages > > having to migr

Re: Proposed update to the python policy

On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 10:38:30PM +0100, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: > [Pierre Habouzit, 21.03.2007] > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 09:25:52PM +0100, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: > > > it's useful for Python applications that need specific Python version. > > > > > > f.e. if current Python version is 2.4 and m

Re: Proposed update to the python policy

On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 11:03:37PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le mercredi 21 mars 2007 à 14:51 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit : > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 10:47:37PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > > If this is a public extension, this goes completely against the spirit > > > of the policy

Re: Proposed update to the python policy

On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 02:44:29PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 08:22:32PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > > I think it's time to update the python policy with the progress that has > > been made in how we build python packages. The proposed diff is > > attached. In su

Re: Proposed update to the python policy

On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 03:14:27PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 11:03:37PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > Le mercredi 21 mars 2007 à 14:51 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit : > > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 10:47:37PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > > > If this is a publi

Re: module package naming

On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 08:46:35PM +0100, Thomas Jollans wrote: > Hi, > > the debian python policy states that module packages should be named > python-foo, foo being the module name. I intend to package PySyck, which > contains the module/package 'syck', which is also in python-syck (AFAICT >

Re: Proposed update to the python policy

On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 10:59:40PM +0100, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: > [Steve Langasek, 21.03.2007] > > So with current deprecated, what is the solution for a package which wants > > to build a single binary extension for the current python version in a > > package named python-foo, with no support for

Re: Proposed update to the python policy

On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 11:16:14PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 02:44:29PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 08:22:32PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > > I think it's time to update the python policy with the progress that has > > > been made in

Re: Proposed update to the python policy

On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 03:51:20PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 11:16:14PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > > If we don't, I don't see the purpose of the policy alltogether. > > Allowing transitions between default versions of python without package > renames, bypassing

Re: module package naming

On Wednesday 21 March 2007 23:26, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 08:46:35PM +0100, Thomas Jollans wrote: > > Hi, > > > > the debian python policy states that module packages should be named > > python-foo, foo being the module name. I intend to package PySyck, which > > contains t

Re: Proposed update to the python policy

[Steve Langasek, 21.03.2007] > On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 10:59:40PM +0100, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: > > I think depending on python-dev for current only modules/apps and > > python-all-dev for the rest should be enough (if both systems will > > recognize it correctly, I mean also: "python-dev(>=2.5)|py

Re: Proposed update to the python policy

On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 12:23:59AM +0100, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: > [Steve Langasek, 21.03.2007] > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 10:59:40PM +0100, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: > > > I think depending on python-dev for current only modules/apps and > > > python-all-dev for the rest should be enough (if both sy

Re: Proposed update to the python policy

Le mercredi 21 mars 2007 à 15:51 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit : > > If we don't, I don't see the purpose of the policy alltogether. > > Allowing transitions between default versions of python without package > renames, bypassing NEW, allowing binNMUable transitions, and generally > simplifying

Re: module package naming

Le jeudi 22 mars 2007 à 00:06 +0100, Thomas Jollans a écrit : > There is also the option of only having one in the distribution, which should > be PySyck for having more features. This would mean chucking the official > binding out of debian, which I am not entirely comfortable with either. If i

Re: Proposed update to the python policy

On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 12:05:30AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 03:51:20PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 11:16:14PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > > > If we don't, I don't see the purpose of the policy alltogether. > > Allowing transitions b

Re: Proposed update to the python policy

[Pierre Habouzit, 22.03.2007] > On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 12:23:59AM +0100, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: > > [Steve Langasek, 21.03.2007] > > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 10:59:40PM +0100, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: > > > > I think depending on python-dev for current only modules/apps and > > > > python-all-dev f

Re: Proposed update to the python policy

On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 12:36:07AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > > * set XB-Python-Version to "current, >2.5" # here "current" can't be > > deprecated, > > but this field should be filled automatically (think ${python:Versions}) > > so maintainer doesn't have to know about "current" >

Re: Proposed update to the python policy

On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 04:50:30PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 12:05:30AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 03:51:20PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 11:16:14PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > > > > If we don't, I don'

Re: Proposed update to the python policy

On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 12:53:27AM +0100, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: > [Pierre Habouzit, 22.03.2007] > > On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 12:23:59AM +0100, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: > > > * set XB-Python-Version to "current, >2.5" # here "current" can't be > > > deprecated, > > > but this field should be fi

Re: Proposed update to the python policy

On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 01:17:17AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > > In the original proposal, 'current' was the flag to tell the packaging tools > > that pyversions -d *should* be used. There is of course nothing that stops > > a maintainer from invoking pyversions -d manually; > Okay I see. A

Re: Proposed update to the python policy

On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 12:47:17AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le mercredi 21 mars 2007 à 15:51 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit : > > > If we don't, I don't see the purpose of the policy alltogether. > > Allowing transitions between default versions of python without package > > renames, bypa

Re: Proposed update to the python policy

Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 12:53:27AM +0100, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: > > How will python- know to recompile it just for one version > > and not for all supported ones? > > Why would you prevent the user to bytecompile your package for every > python vers

Re: Proposed update to the python policy

Le jeudi 22 mars 2007 à 16:12 +1100, Ben Finney a écrit : > Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Why would you prevent the user to bytecompile your package for every > > python version he choose to install ? I see the point to avoid archive > > bloat in not building every binary exte