On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 06:07:02PM +0200, Adrian Knoth wrote:
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 05:50:08PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:

We could probably call python-support in the rules file, if it's not done automagically by cdbs. ;)

I certainly recommend to use one of thos Python install systems, not try
to outsmart them.

Doing so with CDBS goes roughly like this:

 * Include CDBS class python-module.mk
 * Declare above CDBS inclusions which Python install system to use
 * Add proper ${python:*} variables to control file
 * Follow documentation of the chosen Python install system on what
other hints is needed
 * Update build dependencies

I completely agree, this sounds reasonable. (I don't have the slightest clue about python packaging, so handing this over to those tools might be a good idea).

Fair enough - if not a module then it need not be packaged separately, but packaging still needs to follow Python Policy.

Are we violating the policy? I must admit I haven't read the python-policy.

As far as I can tell, it's working, lintian isn't complaining, it has the right build- and runtime-dependencies and it probably has the right paths, too, though I'm not entirely sure about the last one.

If you feel we need to change something, please do so. It would take me ten times longer to sort out all the nuances imposed by the policy I haven't read, time that's better spent on actually coding something useful. ;) (e.g. the FFADO-FTBFS-gcc-4.5, which I fixed this afternoon. I'm pushing this upstream and then update to a new svn version afterwards)

I'll have a closer look.

Even if accidentally(!) we do follow Python Policy, I would prefer to let CDBS handle it, so as to potentially automagically update it too.

 - Jonas

* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list

Reply via email to