On Monday, December 28, 2015 11:08:27 AM Adam Majer wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 02:57:50PM +0300, Dmitry Shachnev wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 03:41:39PM -0300, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez 
Meyer wrote:
> > >> In any case I think we should keep the logic in pkg-kde-tools package,
> > >> i.e.
> > >> replace the existing script with mine or extend its logic. I hope
> > >> Python
> > >> dependency is not a problem, is it?
> > > 
> > > I'm totally for it. If it becomes a problem for someone we can consider
> > > generating a new binary package from the same source and adding the
> > > python
> > > dependency there. We might even do that from the beginning.
> > 
> > Maybe we should actually rewrite it in Perl or shell. (Any volunteers? :))
> 
> AFAIK, this is only to check symbols at build time? So Build-Depends
> on python (or python-minimal) and no additional runtime depends. There
> is no use creating work where none is required, especially if we
> already have the most readable language out of the three :D

Not python{3}-minimal as nothing outside the core python/python3 stack is 
supposed to depend on those.  Also, it'd be nice for it to be python3 vice 
python since that's the future.

Scott K

-- 
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-kde-talk

Reply via email to