Il giorno Tue, 8 Dec 2009 21:24:05 +0100 Loïc Minier <l...@dooz.org> ha scritto:
> To resurrect the Python Policy as a document reflecting required and
> recommended Python packaging practices, we prepared a set of patches.
Many thanks for that!
I entirely read the 1.9.0.0 draft, I've got some thoughts on it.
---
| 1.2. Main packages
|
| At any time, the `python' package must ensure that the binary
| `/usr/bin/python' is provided.
---
This is currently not a binary, but a relative symlink pointing
to ./pythonX.Y (where X.Y is the current supported Python version).
Should this point be reworded to avoid confusion?
---
| 1.5. Module Path
|
| As an exception to the above, modules managed by python-support are
| installed in another directory which is added to the sys.path using
| the .pth mechanism.
---
I'm unsure about this point. Doesn't python-support search for modules
in /usr/lib/pythonY.X/{site,dist}-packages, or is this another location
where pysupport can look at?
---
| 2.2. Module Package Names
|
| Public modules should be packaged with a name of `python-<foo>',
| where <foo> is the name of the module.
---
Since this can lead to some misunderstandings, I'd add that this
naming scheme applies to binary packages, things are relaxed speaking
of source package names, where we usually conform to upstream names.
---
| 2.3. Specifying Supported Versions
|
| Your control file should also have a line:
|
| XB-Python-Version: ${python:Versions}
|
| The python:Versions is substituted by the supported Python
| versions of the binary package, based on `XS-Python-Version'. (If
| you are not using python-central or python-support, you will need
| to handle this substitution yourself.)
---
python-support doesn't manage XB-Python-Version (or at least it
shouldn't right now). Is this supposed to be changed in python-support,
or packages using such tool can ignore it?
---
| 3.1. Programs using the default python
|
| If the program needs the python module `foo', it must depend on
| `python-foo'.
---
This is conflicting with 2.2: it has been told packages providing <foo>
module *should* be named as python-<foo>, while here it has been told
programs needing <foo> module *must* depend on python-<foo>, which could
eventually follow another naming scheme. I think we should strictly
enforce 2.2, or relax 3.1.
It looks fine to me otherwise, thanks again!
--
.''`.
: :' : Luca Falavigna <dktrkr...@debian.org>
`. `'
`-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
