Re: packaging question

[Florent Rougon <flo@via.ecp.fr>]

Peter S Galbraith <p.galbraith@globetrotter.net> wrote:

> It's probably overkill.  If users are likely to install EITHER
> python2.1-xmms or python2.2-xmms but not both, then repeat the docs in
> each and forget about python-xmms-common (the license needs to be in
> every binary package anyway).

Hmmm. The scheme I described already implemented, but I am willing to
change it for a better one, if any.

No, users are likely to install BOTH python2.1-xmms and python2.2-xmms,
because if they write a Python program using these bindings (to
libxmms), they will probably want to test it on several Python versions.

For the license, I thought a symlink would be enough but this means that
the .deb taken alone has no license. Perhaps I should have a real
directory in /usr/share/doc for each package containing the license
and a symlink or README.Debian pointing to the documentation.

> At that point, python-xmms is probably overkill too.

Well, it is the standard way for users to have their Python add-on
packages automatically follow Debian default Python (same for other
Python programs using these bindings and not particularly tied to a
specific Python version).

Thanks for your comments.

-- 
Florent


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org