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

Bug#660128: RFS: heybuddy/0.2.3-1 [ITP] - light identi.ca microblogging client

Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Benoît Knecht <benoit.knecht@fsfe.org>, 2012-02-21, 13:36:
> >In the same file, you run compileall unconditionally; I guess it
> >should only run during configure.
> What's wrong with running it unconditionally?

Nothing wrong per se, it just seemed unnecessary...

> As far as I know, none of the Python helpers in the wild create
> maintainer script fragments that'd check the first argument.

...but if python helpers do it that way, I guess it's fine then. I
didn't know it was the usual behavior, thanks for the heads up.

> >You do not honor the settings from /etc/python/debian_config [1].
> >
> >[1] http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/python-policy/ch-module_packages.html#s-byte_compilation
> Righto. Implementing byte-compiling is not really straight-forward.
> If you do it yourself, there's a great chance you'll do it wrong.
> Apart from the issue mentioned by Benoît:
> - Modules are not re-byte-compiled when the default Python version
> changes.
> - postrm doesn't remove anything (unless /bin/sh is a symlink to
> bash, which is not the default these days).

Oh, right, good catch. That brings up another point actually, Daniel;
both maintainer scripts are missing a #! line, declaring which shell
should run them, and you may want to use set -e [2].

[2] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-maintainerscripts.html#s6.1


Benoît Knecht

Reply to: