Re: RFS: python-goopy
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 06:48:11PM +0530, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 12:40:53PM +0200, Christoph Haas wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 04:51:51PM +0530, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
> It's gone now. However, I haven't included any README.Debian, since
> the documentation shown by apt-cache show is quite alright in my view.
Makes sense to me.
> > Another detail... you might extend the description (debian/control)
> > of the python2.(3|4)-goopy binary packages to read something like
> > "This package provides the modules for Python 2.4".
>
> Done that as well.
You can probably take advantage of debhelper substitution variables;
since you are making multiple binary packages, and their description
should all be the same, to within the version number. I guess what
you want to look at it /u/s/d/debhelper/PROGRAMMING.gz.
> > > Then, I generate an HTML file documenting all functions available
> > > using pydoc2.[34] (appropriate version), and install that into the
> > > docs directory using dh_installdocs. Is this OK?
> >
> > Nice idea. I haven't packaged that many Python modules before. So I
> > can't say if this is the common practise.
>
> But I think you'll say it's OK here, since Google has provided a
> pydoc'ed file on their website:
>
> http://goog-goopy.sourceforge.net/goopy.functional.html
>
> So, I thought it'd make more sense generating it from the source,
Excellent idea.
> As for the Build-Depends-Indep, I checked out the problem myself using
> pbuilder , and added python2.4-dev. Finally, I have eliminated all
> lintian warnings but one; outdated standards version! I think I am
> running the latest dh_make + debhelpers, and from what I gather from
> the lintian info site, this isn't too serious, is it?
Right. You can read /u/s/d/debian-policy/upgrading-checklist.txt.gz
to see if there's anything that needs to get updated in your package
in order to claim "compliance" with a higher version. If not, then
just change the version (in the changelog, the typical entry for this
is "* Bumped standards version").
Justin
Reply to: