So, one issue I just noticed about the proposed packaging is that, because it uses python-support instead of pyshared, it tickles some bugs in setuptools that show up in our Tahoe project. It seems that setuptools is not as good at finding metadata in python-support -provided packages as in pyshared -provided ones. http://bugs.python.org/setuptools/issue17 has more information.
We have a workaround for this (http://allmydata.org/trac/tahoe/ticket/229 has details), by adding "--site-dirs /var/lib/python-support/python2.5" to the setup.py command line. However, trying to build Tahoe against the proposed python-support -based package fails in a new way, with an error like: pkg_resources.UnknownExtra: foolscap 0.3.2 has no such extra feature 'secure_connections' which suggests that our workaround is insufficient to get setuptools to see the "extra feature" metadata in /usr/share/python-support/python-foolscap/foolscap-0.3.2.egg-info/requires.txt . I believe this is a setuptools bug, and when we get some time we'll add it to setuptools-issue17 (or a new issue), but since our hackish workaround was good enough for a while, I wanted to ask: How hard would it be to use python-support instead of pyshared for the new python-foolscap package? It would make our lives (as Tahoe users/developers) easier, as well as any other folks who are writing programs who all three of (foolscap, setuptools, the setuptools 'extra feature' feature to indicate that their program requires SSL-based foolscap connections). thanks, -Brian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]