Hi,
the debian python policy states that module packages should be named
python-foo, foo being the module name. I intend to package PySyck, which
contains the module/package 'syck', which is also in python-syck (AFAICT
PySyck is basically a fork of the upstream bindings).
Would python-pysyck
On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 08:46:35PM +0100, Thomas Jollans wrote:
Hi,
the debian python policy states that module packages should be named
python-foo, foo being the module name. I intend to package PySyck, which
contains the module/package 'syck', which is also in python-syck (AFAICT
On Wednesday 21 March 2007 23:26, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 08:46:35PM +0100, Thomas Jollans wrote:
Hi,
the debian python policy states that module packages should be named
python-foo, foo being the module name. I intend to package PySyck, which
contains the
Le jeudi 22 mars 2007 à 00:06 +0100, Thomas Jollans a écrit :
There is also the option of only having one in the distribution, which should
be PySyck for having more features. This would mean chucking the official
binding out of debian, which I am not entirely comfortable with either.
If it
4 matches
Mail list logo