Re: RFS: python-goopy
On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 08:51:43PM +0200, Christoph Haas wrote:
> > I have edited it, and added a message saying Debian users have it
> > installed already.
>
> That's self-explaining in my opinion. After all that's why a user will
> have installed your package. :)
>
> Thomas is right that it's not trivial to create multi-binary packages.
> I'd upload your package if you just want to do a package for Python 2.3.
> Perhaps you want to look at another Python package though. I believe
> that http://packages.qa.debian.org/p/python-mysqldb.html would be a good
> example. Look at the debian/control file there.
If there is a right waty of doing it, I must learn it!
So, I borrowed a few things from python-imaging, and now have a neat
setup to generate python-goopy, python2.3-goopy and python2.4-goopy
from a single control file single rules and a single source "tree"
(directory). It wasn't difficult, though it did take some time.
In case you still have enthusiasm remaining, the current stuff is at
http://kumar.travisbsd.org/debpackages and it is more "standards
adherent", as it used debhelper more wisely.
Now, I have identified three more things which are to be done:
1.docs: Upstream claims that they have docs, but there aren't
any. Anyway, the source is well commented. What should I do with the
README and PKG-INFO?
2.There is one file, functional_unittest.py which is executable. Now,
its permissions get set to 644 even if I add a
-Xfunctional_unittest.py to dh_fixperms.
3.functional_unittest.py has #!/usr/bin/env python at the
top. Standards demand that it should be #!/usr/bin/python2.x for the
appropriate Python version. Is there a standard way to take care of
this or do I write some sed substitution do do it?
Thanks, Christoph and Thomas for your patient response.
Kumar
--
Kumar Appaiah,
462, Jamuna Hostel,
Indian Institute of Technology Madras,
Chennai - 600 036
Reply to: