On Jun 14, 2011, at 12:33 PM, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote: >ah -- wishlist! Well, just be careful. :) We have to clearly define what's the responsibility of upstream Python, what falls under third-party add-ons (e.g. Sphinx), and what is the integrator/OS-vender's responsibility. >On Tue, 14 Jun 2011, Zygmunt Krynicki wrote: >> Can please we have standardized hooks to build sphinx documentation >> and run setup.py test tests? Can those hooks do the right thing with >> generated documentation (dealing all the boring .doc-base files, >> replacing jquery with symlinks, ensuring proper requirements are >> used). > >and providing necessary tuning for matplotlib backends to assure >offscreen renderer (as I do e.g. in [1]) > >and not building documentation at all for binary-arch builds > >and if we go wild: take care about moving .so and _d.so >extensions into corresponding binary packages of architecture 'any', if >there is a corresponding python-MODULE-lib binary package defined. >Otherwise it looks as ugly as [2] > >;-) > >[1] https://github.com/yarikoptic/nitime/blob/HEAD/debian/rules >[2] https://github.com/yarikoptic/nipy/blob/debian/debian/rules#L46 >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature