On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 23:46:25 +0200, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Le jeudi 24 août 2006 à 17:56 +0300, Lars Wirzenius a écrit : >> Round and round we go. >> >> The people writing the dh_* snippets insist that the details of how >> they work, such as locations in which Python modules should >> actually be installed, can't be put into the Policy. The Policy >> editor, and those of use who don't want to use debhelper, insist >> that writing policy based on debhelper tools is not acceptable. > Let me rephrase it: the internals of python-support, and how it > helps implementing the python policy, are developed in the > python-support documentation. They don't need to be part of the > policy and they have nothing to do with debhelper either. >> This has now been going on for long enough that I conclude that the >> Python policy pushers really do intend to make using debhelper a >> Policy requirement for any package containing any Python code. > I can't speak for others, but python-support provides > pysupport-movemodules and pysupport-parseversions to separate the > debhelper snippet from the actual abstraction code. I don't like adding unnecessary build dependencies for my packages. > (BTW, for a similar problematic that involves more than a hundred > packages, nobody ever asked me how to make a package using GConf > without using dh_gconf. Which means the GConf policy has never been > written out but is currently defined by the dh_gconf behavior.) Oh, all this means is that I havge not yet had any occassion to package Gnome stuff :) manoj -- There is nothing wrong with Southern California that a rise in the ocean level wouldn't cure. -- Ross MacDonald Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]