Re: pyBigWig
> I am not quite sure what you mean by "organizing the source tree", > since > you are supposed to have the unpacked sources from the upstream > tarball, > plus an additional debian/ folder containing the Debian specific > files > (control, copyright, rules...). This is common to all packaging > policies. That was perhaps an awkward phrase. But what I meant was I used to doing git buildpackage style packages, but I was trying to make this package's repository git-dpm compatible. The Python Modules team is currently recommending git-dpm, and there's some extra configuration they suggested. https://wiki.debian.org/Python/GitPackaging#Tag_style Diane
Re: pyBigWig
On 02/12/16 19:14, Diane Trout wrote: I don't think this is a problem. Policy 4.13 [1] says ~~~ Debian packages should not make use of these convenience copies unless the included package is explicitly intended to be used in this way. ~~~ which I think matches the situation here. Thank you for point that clause out. As its a python module I followed python team conventions for organizing the source tree. But it seems like the package really should be under debian-med? Is that OK? Diane There is a large range of Python packages being maintained in other teams than the DPMT, and the latter usually recommends to follow the Python packaging recommendations. In the end, where the package (pyBigWig) is hosted becomes a matter of choice for the maintainer (yourself) and the decision is often based on which team is likely to be more able to assist with looking after the package long-term. For instance, if pyBigWig is mostly used by other d-med packages, then it is sensible to host it alongside them. I am not quite sure what you mean by "organizing the source tree", since you are supposed to have the unpacked sources from the upstream tarball, plus an additional debian/ folder containing the Debian specific files (control, copyright, rules...). This is common to all packaging policies. Ghis
Re: pyBigWig
> I don't think this is a problem. Policy 4.13 [1] says > > ~~~ > Debian packages should not make use of these convenience copies > unless > the included package is explicitly intended to be used in this way. > ~~~ > > which I think matches the situation here. Thank you for point that clause out. As its a python module I followed python team conventions for organizing the source tree. But it seems like the package really should be under debian-med? Is that OK? Diane
Re: pyBigWig
Hello, على الخميس 1 كانون الأول 2016 16:32، كتب Diane Trout: > And instead of building a shared library, they just add the C files to > the python C extension. See: > https://github.com/dpryan79/pyBigWig/blob/master/setup.py#L14 > > I believe this is a violation of Debian packaging policy, but this > seems useful, what should one do in this case? I don't think this is a problem. Policy 4.13 [1] says ~~~ Debian packages should not make use of these convenience copies unless the included package is explicitly intended to be used in this way. ~~~ which I think matches the situation here. Thanks and regards Afif 1. https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#s-embeddedfiles -- Afif Elghraoui | عفيف الغراوي http://afif.ghraoui.name
