[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: RFS: python-nouvelle

>> - join #debian-python on the OFTC network and ask for sponsoring there.
> I'll ask on the list, I connect only when I have some free time :)

Free time - what's that? :P

>> Here are a few things I found while looking trough your package:
>> - the source is name nouvelle - why do you rename it? not a problem to
>> build a package with a different name from it.
> Well, it's not a stand-alone program, it's a Python Module. AFAIK, Python
> Modules must be named python-foo. I'm kinda used to contributing to Pkg-Perl
> team, and there we *must*, *MUST* use lib<foo>-perl if it's a module. I believe
> Python Policy states that too, I'm not really sure though (and don't really
> have the time to go and look :().

Right, the *package* which is beeing built from the source mus tbe
called python-foo - the name of the source doesn't matter here. Source:
foo and Package: python-foo is just fine.

>> - you could build-depend on python-all instead of python and run the
>> build target for all python versions, so you'll get a QA FTBFS mail if
>> something doesn't work with new python versions. Look at the html5lib
>> debian/rules file if you need an example, it's in the team's svn.
> Great. I've learned a lot today with this :)
> But... lintian now complains about python-all staying in B-D instead of B-D-I.
> As far as I can remember, shouldn't the clean target be satisfied in B-D? This
> means that "python" must be present in B-D. Should I add both, python in B-D
> and python-all in B-D-I? It sounds weird to me.

You need python-all in B-D as you need it for the clean target, try
lintian from unstable - see #444642.

> (as you might have understood, I'm rather new to Python packaging ;) )

Not a problem at all :)

> Should I write to debian-python@l.d.o or to python-modules-team@l.a.d.o ?

Write to the latter address. But pinging POX or ana on irc is still the
fastest way :)



Bernd Zeimetz
<bernd@bzed.de>                         <http://bzed.de/>

Reply to: