Re: Packaging plugins for Python applications

* Emilio Pozuelo Monfort po...@ubuntu.com, 2009-05-30, 01:42: What is the correct umbrella to package a plugin for a Python application under? DPMT or PAPT? PAPT, since it's not a module And, is there some recommended binary package naming scheme for such packages? Nope, there's only one

Re: Packaging plugins for Python applications

2009/5/29 Jakub Wilk uba...@users.sf.net: Hello, What is the correct umbrella to package a plugin for a Python application under? DPMT or PAPT? Depends how you package it. If you inject it into the app's private modules folder eg /usr/share/APPLICATION/plugins/new plugin then I think it is

Re: Packaging plugins for Python applications

Jakub Wilk escribió: Well, technically Mercurial extensions *are* public Python modules. You can import one into your own Python program and fiddle with it. Most users would never do such a thing, yet it is perfectly feasible and can be proven useful. Ok, I misunderstood you. I thought hg-git

Packaging plugins for Python applications

Hello, What is the correct umbrella to package a plugin for a Python application under? DPMT or PAPT? And, is there some recommended binary package naming scheme for such packages? I am asking those questions, because I intend[1] to package hg-git[2], a plugin for Mercurial (maintained by

Re: Packaging plugins for Python applications

Jakub Wilk escribió: Hello, Hi Jakub, What is the correct umbrella to package a plugin for a Python application under? DPMT or PAPT? PAPT, since it's not a module And, is there some recommended binary package naming scheme for such packages? Nope, there's only one for modules, but that

Re: Packaging plugins for Python applications

Emilio Pozuelo Monfort po...@ubuntu.com writes: Jakub Wilk escribió: What is the correct umbrella to package a plugin for a Python application under? DPMT or PAPT? PAPT, since it's not a module Hmm? I can't see a reasonable way to package a Python application plug-in that *isn't* a