On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 06:33:04PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 15:51 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
If it's not supposed to be a public module, it shouldn't be in a public
directory, and then there's no reason to provide more packages than just the
application package.
On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 15:51 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
If it's not supposed to be a public module, it shouldn't be in a public
directory, and then there's no reason to provide more packages than just the
application package.
FWIW, this is not the common attitude in the Python community;
Hi Folk,
I've three packages:
denyhosts-python2.3
denyhosts-python2.4
denyhosts-common
the binaries are stored in packages -python2.X but the manpage (common
to alla packages) is stored in denyhosts-common.
Now, i've this linda reports:
# linda -i denyhosts-python2.3_2.3-2_all.deb
Linda:
On 4/20/06, Marco Bertorello [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Folk,
I've three packages:
denyhosts-python2.3
denyhosts-python2.4
denyhosts-common
the binaries are stored in packages -python2.X but the manpage (common
to alla packages) is stored in denyhosts-common.
E: denyhosts-python2.3;
Hi,
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Marco Bertorello wrote:
denyhosts-python2.3
denyhosts-python2.4
denyhosts-common
the binaries are stored in packages -python2.X but the manpage (common
to alla packages) is stored in denyhosts-common.
Why would you have a binary in -python2.3 *and* in -python2.4 ?
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Steve Langasek wrote:
denyhosts-python2.3/2.4 do contain a python module. If and when the Great
Python Reorganization finally happens, this ought to be a single denyhosts
package depending on python ( 2.3), python ( 2.5).
This can already be done with python-support
6 matches
Mail list logo
