On 4/27/06, Gustavo Carneiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sure. Have you counted the number of 'empty' packages in Debian lately? Besides, Guido's original proposal is not a fix for your problem, either; he only proposes to change the requirement for *sub*packages.
On 4/27/06, Phillip J. Eby < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:At 03:48 PM 4/27/2006 +0200, Bernhard Herzog wrote:
>"Gustavo Carneiro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > writes:
>
> > Now the problem. Suppose you have the source package python-foo-bar,
> > which installs $pythondir/foo/__init__.py and $pythondir/foo/bar.py. This
> > would make a module called "foo.bar" available. Likewise, you can have the
> > source package python-foo-zbr, which installs
> $pythondir/foo/__init__.py and
> > $pythondir/foo/zbr.py. This would make a module called "foo.zbr"
> available.
> >
> > The two packages above install the file $pythondir/foo/__init__.py. If
> > one of them adds some content to __init__.py, the other one will overwrite
> > it. Packaging these two packages for e.g. debian would be extremely
> > difficult, because no two .deb packages are allowed to intall the same file.
>
>Yet another solution would be to put foo/__init__.py into a third
>package, e.g. python-foo, on which both python-foo-bar and
>python-foo-zbr depend.
You can't be serious. One package just to install a __init__.py file?
Sure. Have you counted the number of 'empty' packages in Debian lately? Besides, Guido's original proposal is not a fix for your problem, either; he only proposes to change the requirement for *sub*packages.
--
Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
