Re: Bug#128531: tmda
On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 08:06:35AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Adam McKenna writes:
> > On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 12:55:59AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > > reopen 128531
> > > thanks
> > >
> > > > From: adam@debian.org (Adam D. McKenna)
> > > > Changes:
> > > > tmda (0.46-1) unstable; urgency=low
> > > > .
> > > > * New upstream release
> > > > * Package split into 3 packages to help attempt to conform to Debian's
> > > > braindead Python policy. New packages are:
> > > > python-tmda (Python libraries only)
> > > > tmda (tmda and configuration files)
> > > > python2-tmda (dummy package)
> > > > (Closes: Bug#128531, Bug#131294)
> > >
> > > I really like such ChangeLog entries :-(((
> > >
> > > If you think, that the proposed Python policy is braindead, then
> > > explain why.
> > >
> > > Your package restructering is braindead on its own and doesn't fix the
> > > bug reported. Why adding a python2-tmda dummy package?
> >
> > Any policy that forces me to compile .py{c,o} object files in my postinst is
> > braindead. Then I also have to delete them in purge/postrm, and the
> > packaging system knows nothing about them.
>
> In the changelog entry you complained about splitting the package, now
> you complain about compiling the .py files. So the changelog entry is
> simply false.
According to this proposed policy, py{c,o} files only need to be compiled in
postinst and removed in postrm if I want to have "A single pachage for all
versions", as described in section 2.2.3.2. I take this to mean that
generating the .py{c,o} files during the package build process is ok if I
only want to support the default version.
> You have to remove the compiled python files in the postrm. Call as
> root: python -O -c 'import TMDA' and try to remove the package ...
Yeah, that's dumb. The reason for having a package management system is to
manage the package files. .py{c,o} files are not platform-dependent, only
python-version dependent. So there should be no problem generating them
during the package build if I only want to support the default version.
Plus, gee, I don't have a bunch of files littering the filesystem that aren't
known to dpkg.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <adam@debian.org> <adam@flounder.net>
Reply to: