Tarek Ziadé wrote: > 2009/2/17 Zooko O'Whielacronx <zoo...@gmail.com>: >> I use stdeb to build .deb's from Python source distributions. I'm not >> entirely sure what buildout does, but after letting this screencast >> play in the background while I work: >> http://rhodesmill.org/brandon/buildout , I think that I'm >> accomplishing the same goal using setuptools "develop" command with a >> "--prefix=" option. >> >> I just tested the new stdeb 0.2.3 at the request of Andrew Straw, and >> it was able to produce a .deb from the allmydata-tahoe source tree. I >> intend to configure some buildbots to automatically run stdeb to >> produce .deb's of various of my projects: zfec, pycryptopp, pyutil, >> etc. >> > > Same remark as bdist_deb : it looks nice to create .deb files for > single packages. > > I am starting to look at Geoffrey T. Dairiki patch in Distutils, at > http://bugs.python.org/issue1054967 > > Maybe the stdeb team could work on this too ? I'll sen a mail to stdeb > maintainer >
There is no need to email me separately. I usually lurk here... If you're trying to do package management on Debian, I'd suggest using the Debian system rather than trying to invent your own. (I am reading between the lines here by noting that you are not talking about building debian source packages, but only .debs. Please correct me if that interpretation is wrong.) I personally don't see the point in creating .deb packages without actually generating a .dsc first -- you're just going to avoid Debian machinery that helps make sure your .debs are OK. Furthermore, you have some chance that your .dsc packages will work across debian/ubuntu versions, whereas that chance is much reduced if you're using pure .deb packages. The "benefit" of a straight .deb builder is that it could be incredibly dumb and just build raw archives that get unpacked. I imagine that would bypass Debian policy by unpacking everything in /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages. (Nowadays, the python-support machinery in Debian unpacks files to /usr/share/pyshared and them symlinks them across acceptable Python versions' site-package directories). Finally, you'll miss out on all the script installation and so on. So, to me, the interesting discussion is not about auto-generation of .debs. It's about auto-generation of .dscs. Those can trivially be turned into .debs, anyway. > I can probably include such a command in Distutils for 2.7 if I get > help from Debian specialists In case the above arguments persue you to reconsider something like bdist_deb in favor of something like sdist_dsc, may I mention that this is already a distutils command installed by stdeb? However, I don't think stdeb is anywhere near ready for inclusion in the stdlib. But I'd welcome help! -Andrew _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
