Re: python-mkdocs new dependancy

[Brian May <bam@debian.org>]

Piotr Ożarowski <piotr@debian.org> writes:

> [Brian May, 2016-04-18]
>> Sorry, I don't quite understand. How will this help with the fact that
>> mkdocs-bootswatch is listed as a requirement, but we don't have
>> mkdocs-bootswatch in Debian?
>
> FTR: using not packaged version of mkdocs-bootswatch is not an option,
> but that's obvious, right?

Sorry, still not clear what you intend me to do.

I notice that the three packages have different release cycles.

mkdocs 0.15.1
mkdocs-bootswatch 0.1.0
mkdocs-bootstrap 0.1.1

So I think it is probably a good idea to have three seperate Debian
source packages and three seperate binary packages.

It looks like both mkdocs-bootswatch and mkdocs-bootstrap contain
non-Python code.

So instead of installing these using pybuild/setup.py I could install
them in /usr/share/mkdocs/themes/mkdocs-bootswatch and
/usr/share/mkdocs/themes/mkdocs-bootstrap instead.

Then I need to patch mkdocs to look for files in this directory instead
of using Python's setuptools mechanism.

Does this match what you are thinking?
-- 
Brian May <bam@debian.org>