Review: Approve
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~bastian-germann/openlp/main/+merge/372443
Your team OpenLP Core is subscribed to branch lp:openlp.
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openlp-core
Post to : openlp-core@lists.launchpad.net
Review: Needs Fixing
You have left the python3 construct in the openlp/__main__.py which leaves this
as an entry point.
Please confirm this is correct or remove.
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~bastian-germann/openlp/main/+merge/368590
Your team OpenLP Core is subscribed to branch lp:openlp.
Hey! I would really like to see this merged before the alpha.
See also https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0423/#use-a-single-name on
exporting only one package per module.
If you merge this, I am going to provide an openlp package via PyPI and propose
a new installation method that does not
I do not have time right now to install a PyInstaller and reproduce OpenLP
setup files. So I readded the run_openlp.py which just calls the
__main__.start() function. This gives us backwards compatibility and has the
advantage that the run_openlp module is not exported anymore.
--
For the users nothing will change. They are supposed to have some icon pointing
to an executable. Packages should make use of setuptools' ability to extract
that executable from the "entry_points" that is also in the diff. This will
create an executable called /usr/bin/openlp (openlp.exe on
Review: Needs Information
Please explain to me again how PyInstaller will handle this, and how to use
this approach in Debian? Remember, our users are not Python developers.
I don't care how "unpythonic" run_openlp.py is, I care how practical it is.
--
6 matches
Mail list logo
