On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 15:51 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > If it's not supposed to be a public module, it shouldn't be in a public > directory, and then there's no reason to provide more packages than just the > application package.
FWIW, this is not the common attitude in the Python community; people think it's a good idea to store application-specific modules and extensions in the site directory, even if there's no API/ABI stability. For example, I've had several requests for Quod Libet to install its entire private module hierarchy there. You'll find that several programs in Debian, such as gnome-menus, do this already. Personally I think that's very stupid, and leads to 1) a false sense of security about the stability of such APIs, and 2) a lax attitude towards API compatibility in general in Python (since so many "public modules" break all the time). If Debian is going to buck the trend here (and I think it should, and thankfully does for many programs) a lot of packages are buggy. -- Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
