On 01/30/2016 12:42 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 01/29/2016 08:41 PM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: >>> Also, there's no separate tarball for the antlr3 Python package, it's >>> all-in-one. >> >> Well, couldn't the tarball of the python-antlr3 package simply consist >> in the content of the runtime/Python3 directory? Repacking the tarball >> isn't difficult. That's how the C runtime was packaged I believe >> (libantlr3c). >> >> Emmanuel Bourg > > After some investigation, I can see it wont be easy to detach the Python > module from the rest. > > The problem is that the Python bindings require the toplevel tree. See > the code in setup.py: > > rootDir = os.path.abspath( > os.path.join(os.path.dirname(__file__), '..', '..')) > > then later on the rootDir is used for the jar files. > > So, yeah, I could do it, but then it will mean either heavily patching > setup.py, or not run the unit tests. Both options aren't very > satisfying, knowing that it should be very easy to add Python support in > the existing antlr3 package. > > I'll try further, and I'll let you know.
When upstream supports it with an all-in-one source distribution, I feel that there is sufficient value to building the language bindings from a single source package to at least give it a try. If it ends up being too problematic for Debian or the Java Team specifically, we can always split the package later. Emmanuel, would you mind terribly if I worked with zigo to extend the existing source package to also ship the python bindings? Cheers, tony
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
__ This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers>. Please use debian-j...@lists.debian.org for discussions and questions.