Le jeudi 27 août 2009 à 19:05 -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
> > * fixing paths from site-packages to *-packages (since the path
> > now depends on the Python version, yay)
>
> I may be confused by this, but so far as I can tell, I don't have to do
> anything for this to work for the module I'm looking at. Under what
> circumstances would you expect for a package to need to be modified to
> deal with this?
Some valid cases:
* several binaries, list /usr/lib/python2.Y/site-packages in
debian/*.install
* rm -f
debian/$package/usr/lib/python2.Y/site-packages/useless.py
* dh_link ... /usr/lib/python2.Y/site-packages/foo/foo.ttf
* any kind of useful thing the maintainer can do with the modules
Some invalid cases I have seen in the archive:
* rm -f .../site-packages/*.la (or *.pyc)
* mv .../site-packages .../pyshared/blah
* any kind of other stupid thing the maintainer invented
> The package I'm looking at is a package for a client and server
> application that also builds Perl, Python, and PHP bindings for its client
> library, so the Makefile machinery is more complex than just using
> distutils and needs the bits of glue pushed into its build machinery. But
> I think I have it sorted out, apart from not being positive it's going to
> work with 2.6.
Indeed, it’s not a problem for packages not using distutils, since most
of them already handle prefixes correctly.
Cheers,
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `' “I recommend you to learn English in hope that you in
`- future understand things” -- Jörg Schilling
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=