Re: RFS: python-goopy
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 04:51:51PM +0530, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
> Sorry for going on and on!
Don't worry. We'll be done complaining about the package soon. ;)
> But I just wanted to inform you that I have found a way to make up for
> the docs, and want to know whether it is all right.
> What I have done is, I have prepended some info in the README with
> install info, saying that this is part of the original package and not
> of relevance to Debian users, as they already have it installed.
You are actually patching the upstream's README file. I personally do
not recommend changing upstream's files. Imagine what happens when the
upstream releases a new version. You would then have to patch the new
My suggestions is to not use/install the README file at all. It does not
contain that much useful information anyway.
- it needs python2.1 -> dependencies
- there's documentation in... -> people look for docs in /usr/share/doc
- license -> copyright file
If you really needed to patch upstream files you might want to take a
look at the "dpatch" tool. Although it's surely overkill here. So my
conclusion: just don't care about the README.
Next... I believe that the build dependencies (debian/control) also need
an entry for "python2.4-dev". And since the package is architecture
independent it may be good to use 'Build-Depends-Indep:' instead of
Another detail... you might extend the description (debian/control)
of the python2.(3|4)-goopy binary packages to read something like
"This package provides the modules for Python 2.4".
> Then, I generate an HTML file documenting all functions available
> using pydoc2. (appropriate version), and install that into the
> docs directory using dh_installdocs. Is this OK?
Nice idea. I haven't packaged that many Python modules before. So I
can't say if this is the common practise.
After building the package (preferably in "pbuilder") you should run
lintian and linda on it. I get a couple of warnings and error messages
".signature" [Modified] 3 lines --100%-- 3,41 All