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

Re: dh_python and python policy analysis

Le vendredi 25 août 2006 à 13:01 +0200, Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
> > 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.
> That is still not what is required. Unless these tools become part of
> the dpkg-dev package, it should be documented in policy how they (are
> supposed to) do their job.

If you want to stick a "policy" label on the python-support
documentation, that's fine with me, but this is the least of my
concerns. The important point is for this documentation to exist.

Also, my concern is to make the developer's life easier. I don't think
writing gazillions of policies will help the developer. We have first to
provide tools that implement this policy, after which we have plenty of
time to write up formal documents. The whole point of free software is
to re-use other people's tools and 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.)
> The mere fact that a given bug exists somewhere else, too, does not make
> it less of a bug.

The point is, it may be a bug, but do we have to fix a bug that nobody
cares enough about to even *ask* about it? Granted, this is a much
simpler case, but it shows that many developers don't care what a tool
does if it works properly.
 .''`.           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: