On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 08:51:43PM +0200, Christoph Haas wrote: > > I have edited it, and added a message saying Debian users have it > > installed already. > > That's self-explaining in my opinion. After all that's why a user will > have installed your package. :) > > Thomas is right that it's not trivial to create multi-binary packages. > I'd upload your package if you just want to do a package for Python 2.3. > Perhaps you want to look at another Python package though. I believe > that http://packages.qa.debian.org/p/python-mysqldb.html would be a good > example. Look at the debian/control file there.
If there is a right waty of doing it, I must learn it! So, I borrowed a few things from python-imaging, and now have a neat setup to generate python-goopy, python2.3-goopy and python2.4-goopy from a single control file single rules and a single source "tree" (directory). It wasn't difficult, though it did take some time. In case you still have enthusiasm remaining, the current stuff is at http://kumar.travisbsd.org/debpackages and it is more "standards adherent", as it used debhelper more wisely. Now, I have identified three more things which are to be done: 1.docs: Upstream claims that they have docs, but there aren't any. Anyway, the source is well commented. What should I do with the README and PKG-INFO? 2.There is one file, functional_unittest.py which is executable. Now, its permissions get set to 644 even if I add a -Xfunctional_unittest.py to dh_fixperms. 3.functional_unittest.py has #!/usr/bin/env python at the top. Standards demand that it should be #!/usr/bin/python2.x for the appropriate Python version. Is there a standard way to take care of this or do I write some sed substitution do do it? Thanks, Christoph and Thomas for your patient response. Kumar -- Kumar Appaiah, 462, Jamuna Hostel, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai - 600 036 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
