Re: dh_python and python policy analysis
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 23:46:25 +0200, Josselin Mouette <firstname.lastname@example.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 <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C