On Thu, 2006-02-02 at 21:09 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: > Josselin Mouette writes: > > There is still a situation we can improve easily, though: private > > modules. Currently, they have to migrate with python transitions, and > > this is only because of byte-compilation. The python-support way of > > doing things should still be fine for them, and it can reduce the number > > of packages to migrate at once, without complicating anyone's work. > > that is, packages with private modules but without extension modules > and no modules in /usr/lib/python2.x. how many packages are this? Off the top of my head and in no particular order: pydance, solarwolf, pathological (this is standard practice in the Pygame community), uligo, linda, pychecker, amarok, reportbug, dput, python-gtk2-dev, straw, gdesklets-data, hal-device-manager. My brain isn't an exhaustive list of Python packaging irregularities though, so I'm going to guess there's more. It's hard to find these automatically because there's no consistent way they're packaged. amaroK, for example, doesn't byte-compile the modules at all. -- Joe Wreschnig <piman@debian.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part