Re: RFS: python-harvestman
On 2/16/06, Kumar Appaiah <akumar@ee.iitm.ac.in> wrote:
> > Anyway, is this a python "module" or a python "program" ? It looks
> > like a python program to me, and therefore it does not need to be
> > called python2.3-harvestman but rather harvestman -1.0 and
> > harvestman-1.1 or something like that. The "python-foo" naming scheme
> > is there to identify python modules.
> It is a program. However, the installer provided by upstream installs
> it there. Besides, some functions can be used as library functions,
> and may be useful elsewhere, won't they?
Yes, in that case, I guess it's ok.
> > In the case of an independent program, you can install it in
> > /usr/share/foo instead of the site-packages dir.
> That would mean meddling with the Python import directories, won't it?
> Besides, the default installer installs it there. If you still think I
> should install it in /usr/share/, I don't think it will be a problem.
No, that's fine. It was just a suggestion. If it's simpler to have
it in site-packages, then there's nothing wrong with it.
> > Also, python2.4 will be declared Debian's official version pretty
> > soon, so I think that you could probably just do the python2.4
> > version, since there are so many extra features in that one.
> Again, if you really feel python2.4 only would be better and/or
> harvestman, rather than python-harvestman would be better, I'll
> repackage it.
I do think that having python-2.4 only would be better, because if
not, it's very difficult to execute the command since it's not in the
path. And you do recommend the 2.4 version in your Readme... But if
you really want to distribute both, that's your call.
--
Besos,
Marga
Reply to: