Re: Fw: [Debian Wiki] Update of "Python/LibraryStyleGuide" by FedericoCeratto
On 27 December 2013 16:08, Clint Byrum <spamaps@debian.org> wrote:
> Excerpts from Dimitri John Ledkov's message of 2013-12-27 07:18:05 -0800:
>> On 27 December 2013 15:00, Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> wrote:
>> > On 12/17/2013 01:02 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> >> [...]
>> >> You'll want to have at least the following build dependencies:
>> >>
>> >> * debhelper (>= 8)
>> >> - * dh-python
>> >> * python-all (>= 2.6.6-3~)
>> >> * python-setuptools
>> >> * python3-all
>> >> * python3-setuptools
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Just reacting on the above change. It's my understanding that we do need
>> > to add dh-python explicitly if we want clean backports (eg: unchanged
>> > from Sid). Am I right? If that's the case, shouldn't we advise to write
>> > dh-python explicitly for until Jessie is released?
>> >
>>
>> Why should back-ports dictate how Jessie is developed? This is not the
>> same requirements as e.g. dpkg where last one must be able to process
>> all packages from the immediately next release.
>>
>
> I don't think this is dictation, just pragmatic cooperation with a fairly
> popular service.
>
>> And dh-python is available from backports - stable-bpo 1.20131021-1~bpo70+1
>>
>> I don't understand why are you insisting on blocking migrations to
>> dh-python. Is there some non-Debian requirement that you are omitting
>> / not-telling here?
>>
>
> I can't tell if you're being suspicious or leading. Either way, can we
> just trust each-other and use clear language? I don't see any ulterior
> motive there, just a desire to keep things simple.
>
OK, I'm sorry.
What does it mean a "clean backport" vs other type of backports?
dh-python is in backports, so no changes are required to backport
packages build-depending on dh-python. Is that not clean enough?
--
Regards,
Dimitri.
Reply to: