Re: RFC: Proposed updates to the Python Policy to reflect current practices
Hello,
Now I wish I could find time to write "de-facto" packaging tutorial in
wiki to see how the patched policy and original policy is going to
solve this real-world problem.
Thanks for collaboration.
--
anatoly t.
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 10:24 PM, Loïc Minier <lool@dooz.org> wrote:
> [ MFT: debian-python@ldo ]
>
> Hi all,
>
> To resurrect the Python Policy as a document reflecting required and
> recommended Python packaging practices, we prepared a set of patches.
> We started in private to provide a complete set of changes and avoid
> flames as much as possible, but now we'd like the whole Debian Python
> community to send comments, feedback, or additional patches.
>
> The goal of this set of patches is only to reflect what's de facto
> being done in the archive, and update various bit-rotted sections of
> the Python Policy. It's only a first step, but also a prerequisite for
> other changes.
>
>
> We hope that once consensus is reached on how to fix the Python Policy
> in the python-defaults package, we can propose new series of patches
> proposing changes to the Python Policy such as ideas from the "new
> dh_python proposal" [1], or Python 3.x support etc.
>
> Thanks,
>
> [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2009/08/msg00003.html
>
> --
> Piotr Ożarowski, Scott Kitterman, Loïc Minier
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkseteUACgkQ4VUX8isJIMD7YQCeIyGvxjxjg0nfsC+xcvJaBpiE
> ohAAnR4BarvnITsGUeJYyAAvnTcQCG/d
> =hlfn
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
Reply to: