* Stefano Rivera stefa...@debian.org, 2011-03-24, 15:35:
I see we still suggest ${python:Provides}. I was encouraged in
#debian-python to never use these unless there's an existing
dependency on a versioned package name.
Correctly using python Provides is expensive. Here's why:
“Provides:
Hi Jakub (2011.03.24_18:48:04_+0200)
But you can claim that only if the package depends on the python2.X
versions of all other modules it requires, even if some of them are
arch:all! (The policy doesn't explain this...)
It does say:
| Packaged modules available for one particular version of
Hi Scott (2011.03.19_05:52:49_+0200)
What else needs doing?
I suggest making it clearer in the policy that byte-compilation etc.
are best taken care of by helpers. The policy *is* probably the first
place that someone looking to create a Python module/app package will
look.
There are a few
On Thursday, March 24, 2011 09:35:21 am Stefano Rivera wrote:
I see we still suggest ${python:Provides}. I was encouraged in
#debian-python to never use these unless there's an existing
dependency on a versioned package name.
There are no real packages using a name like python2.X-modulename.
Hi Scott (2011.03.24_15:45:36_+0200)
I think once we get to pyhton2.7 as the only supported python, it
won't matter.
As long as we handle rebuilds after every transition, it already
shouldn't matter (in Python 2 and 3). With dh_python2 we have the same
rebuild requirements, but don't suggest
On Friday, March 18, 2011 10:23:05 pm Scott Kitterman wrote:
Today's mail on XB-Python-Version motivates me to send out an overdue call
for inputs on further changes to the Python policy. I know that needs to
go.
What else needs doing?
Personally I'd like to concentrate on getting policy
6 matches
Mail list logo
