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

Re: RFS: shedskin

On Saturday 26 November 2011 12:59:46 Luca BRUNO wrote:
> Your package looks overall well-done.
> While I _strongly_ suggest you to move it right now under the
> debian-python umbrella (I'm not in it), I'm willing to provide you
> initial sponsorship into the archive if you want.

That would be fantastic! Thank you for offering!

> My only concern regard your debian/patches (shared.py and makefile.py),
> where you hard-code paths. Wouldn't it be better to work with
> upstream in order to provide a safer code-flow, handling both
> debian system-wide path and other local-specific cases? Other distro
> may have the same need, thus it will save patch-forking.

I really want to find the highest quality solution for this, too. Patching 
those files is arguably "good enough" for Debian, but only relevant to 
Debian, too. The problem is that the upstream code considers it acceptable to 
have things like configuration and data files inside the library directory 
hierarchy - changing this was suggested in the process of packaging for 
Debian - and some refactoring might be needed to support our packaging 
requirements that insist on these things living somewhere else.

I'm not sure that /etc/shedskin is the right place to put the FLAGS 
configuration file, so I would welcome suggestions for alternatives. I am 
more convinced that /usr/share/shedskin is a suitable location for Shedskin's 
own runtime library files.

> Let me know how to proceed.

I aim to make the adjustments that Benoît Knecht suggested and to upload the 
result to the mentors site. If you have any suggestions that can swiftly 
resolve the path hardcoding issue - maybe you've seen a similar problem 
before - then I will also incorporate those in that upload. I will also 
contact the author of Shedskin to discuss such issues along with the 
changelog and shedskin.rst (man page) issues that Benoît raised.

Thanks once again for taking an interest!


Reply to: