CC'ed Ed Boras, Maintainer of python-soappy in debian, and Russ Allbery, the last NMUer of the package. Also CC'ed the debian-python mailing list for deeper insight about packaging python modules. Luke Yelavich <themuso@themuso.com> writes: > Hi all > I am looking into packaging jack_mixer, requested by the upstream > developer on IRC. One of its dependancies is the fpconst module. > > As it happens, fpconst can be found in the python-soappy package, which > ahs nothing at all to do with jack_mixer, which is an audio application. > > I am wondering where we go from here. Do we separate out fpconst as a > separate package, and have python-soappy depend on that, or should I > place a copy of fpconst in with the new jack_mixer package? > > Thoughts and suggestions welcome. Looking at bugs like http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=379113, I'd say it makes much sense to have a separate python-fpconst package. I wonder if it makes sense to make the python-soappy package provide the extra binary package, or if it should go out of python-soappy and create a new source package. Ed, Russ, can we hear your opinion on this? -- Gruesse/greetings, Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4
Attachment:
pgpxxKpNIlkIW.pgp
Description: PGP signature