On Tue, 13 Jun 2006, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > - The appearance of the DEB_PYTHON_PRIVATE_MODULES_DIRS variable seems > to be unrelated to this change. I don't doubt it might be useful, but > I just want to be sure where it's coming from.
Well, it's kind of unrelated since the old dh_python can also benefit from it... but it's really needed now since packages with private modules will have to supply it from now on. > At the risk of reopening a flame war, what is the point of supporting > two build systems? I can understand that when you write your rules > file by hand, one system or the other may be more convenient in a > particular situation. But when cdbs runs things, it seems to make no > difference to the users, so why should they be burdened with this > choice? The CDBS users of this class are the python maintainers, and since there's no consensus yet on the right tool, we want to offer the choice... :-) > Btw., before this can be uploaded, it would be good if some of these > build dependencies existed first, so a test case can be written. They exist, they are in unstable as of today. And we have lots of python modules using CDBS to update, so it would be great if Marc can finish his class today and if you can upload a new version quickly afterwards. :-) Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
