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

Re: dh_python and python policy analysis

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 23:46:25 +0200, Josselin Mouette <joss@debian.org> said: 

> 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.

        I don't like adding unnecessary build dependencies for my

> (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.)

        Oh, all this means is that I havge not yet had any occassion
 to package Gnome stuff :)

There is nothing wrong with Southern California that a rise in the
ocean level wouldn't cure. -- Ross MacDonald
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: