[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: dh_python and python policy analysis

Le jeudi 24 août 2006 à 17:56 +0300, Lars Wirzenius a écrit :
> Round and round we go.
> The people writing the dh_* snippets insist that the details of how they
> work, such as locations in which Python modules should actually be
> installed, can't be put into the Policy. The Policy editor, and those of
> use who don't want to use debhelper, insist that writing policy based on
> debhelper tools is not acceptable.

Let me rephrase it: the internals of python-support, and how it helps
implementing the python policy, are developed in the python-support
documentation. They don't need to be part of the policy and they have
nothing to do with debhelper either.

> This has now been going on for long enough that I conclude that the
> Python policy pushers really do intend to make using debhelper a Policy
> requirement for any package containing any Python code.

I can't speak for others, but python-support provides
pysupport-movemodules and pysupport-parseversions to separate the
debhelper snippet from the actual abstraction code.

(BTW, for a similar problematic that involves more than a hundred
packages, nobody ever asked me how to make a package using GConf without
using dh_gconf. Which means the GConf policy has never been written out
but is currently defined by the dh_gconf behavior.)
 .''`.           Josselin Mouette        /\./\
: :' :           josselin.mouette@ens-lyon.org
`. `'                        joss@debian.org
  `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=

Reply to: