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

Re: python packaging infrastructure

Josselin Mouette writes:
> Le vendredi 13 janvier 2006 à 11:30 +0100, Matthias Klose a écrit :
> > > Having a new field in the control file diverges from how debhelper
> > > programs usually behave, so I'd like to avoid such a solution - and I
> > > don't think there's a need for it.
> > 
> > I did outline the need for it.  And I see no reason to add an
> > artificial limitation on the python policy regarding how debhelper
> > behaves or not. debhelper is a tool to _help_ packaging, afaik it's
> > not meant to restrict something.
> I don't understand the *need* for a specific control field. I just see
> it as another way to implement dh_python. My opinion is that 
> "dh_python -m 2.2" is easier to implement and looks more like other dh_*
> commands than "Python-Version: >= 2.2".

As Joe did say in his reply, you have to keep this information
somewhere, when not using dh_python.

For the current Zope packaging policy, there exists such a .dzproduct
file which holds meta information about the product (including product
dependencies).  That was added fearing a pollution of the big metadata
file.  To extract this information you have to extract the .deb and
use your own set of tools. Exposing the metadata (one attribute) to
the place where it belongs lets you do the query work using just the
available tools.

And maybe it's worth to add this attribute to the source package as
well to say something about for which versions this package can be


Reply to: