Hello, Now I wish I could find time to write "de-facto" packaging tutorial in wiki to see how the patched policy and original policy is going to solve this real-world problem.
Thanks for collaboration. -- anatoly t. On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 10:24 PM, Loïc Minier <l...@dooz.org> wrote: > [ MFT: debian-pyt...@ldo ] > > Hi all, > > To resurrect the Python Policy as a document reflecting required and > recommended Python packaging practices, we prepared a set of patches. > We started in private to provide a complete set of changes and avoid > flames as much as possible, but now we'd like the whole Debian Python > community to send comments, feedback, or additional patches. > > The goal of this set of patches is only to reflect what's de facto > being done in the archive, and update various bit-rotted sections of > the Python Policy. It's only a first step, but also a prerequisite for > other changes. > > > We hope that once consensus is reached on how to fix the Python Policy > in the python-defaults package, we can propose new series of patches > proposing changes to the Python Policy such as ideas from the "new > dh_python proposal" [1], or Python 3.x support etc. > > Thanks, > > [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2009/08/msg00003.html > > -- > Piotr Ożarowski, Scott Kitterman, Loïc Minier > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) > > iEYEARECAAYFAkseteUACgkQ4VUX8isJIMD7YQCeIyGvxjxjg0nfsC+xcvJaBpiE > ohAAnR4BarvnITsGUeJYyAAvnTcQCG/d > =hlfn > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org