2011/1/17 Michael scherer <m...@zarb.org>: > On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 06:15:52PM +0100, philippe makowski wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I though that I can find more time to work on this week end, but >> unfortunately it was not the case. >> >> The Mandriva doc is really not a good starter >> (http://wiki.mandriva.com/en/Python_packaging_policy) > > That's just a draft, but as the one that wrote the draft, could I > know what is wrong with what was written so far ? > nothing except it is just a draft ;)
>> so I propose to use the Fedora one >> (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python) with some cleaning. >> >> Can we provide same macros as in In Fedora 13 and greater ? >> >> Do you see any major problem with the Fedora policy ? > > First they make plan for having more than one version of python, something > that I always told I will not do since no one stepped to do much to help > on the transition. In short, as long the python team will in practice be only > me > ( and in practice, I mean "people who effectivly commit" ), we will have only > 1 supported > version of the stack. > ( I consider python 3 to be a different language, because of the > source level incompatibility ). > > There is also the issue on bytecompilation ( > https://qa.mandriva.com/show_bug.cgi?id=50484 ). > I have exposed there the various problem, and apart from explaining > that the solution I chosed was not better than the other, no one gave a > compeling > argument into one or the others alternatives. > > Finally, a vast part of the policy is handling 2to3, a topic that we didn't > discuss > at all, and I would not be confortable to adopt it without first looking at > it and > discussing it. > > Not to mention that our policy draft speak of thing they do not include > ( like naming policy, for a start ). > No problem, I understand perfectly so let start with the Mandriva draft