On 03-Aug-2013, Ben Finney wrote: > On 02-Aug-2013, Barry Warsaw wrote: > > lintian on the resulting .debs produces: > > > > W: python3-coverage: image-file-in-usr-lib > > usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/coverage/htmlfiles/keybd_closed.png > > W: python3-coverage: image-file-in-usr-lib > > usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/coverage/htmlfiles/keybd_open.png > > > > I suppose those make sense though. I guess those files could be moved > > to /usr/share, or perhaps add some lintian overrides if that's not > > possible.
I have reported Debian bug#721676 for this. > How well do Debian's packaging tools and the Python “distribute” work > together? Can I specify that the above-distinguished “package_data” > should be installed to a particular location, and have the installed > package just work? Further reading of the Distutils documentation leads me to the following unpleasant conclusion: * The ‘package_data’ option causes files to be installed alongside the Python code. This is wrong for these non-Python-specific data files, since they are independent of the architecture and version of Python. * The ‘data_files’ option allows files to be installed anywhere. But that location is not (?) discoverable within the installed Python library, so is no good for submitting to Coverage upstream as a fix. Neither of these is good. Ideally we need a solution such that the fix is suitable for incorporating upstream and we (eventually) don't need to patch the code. So I'm going to postpone addressing this until a solution can be found for this bug. -- \ “If I had known what it would be like to have it all... I might | `\ have been willing to settle for less.” —Jane Wagner, via Lily | _o__) Tomlin | Ben Finney <[email protected]>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
