Re: Bug#493888: dh-make: debian/rule template lists deprecated dh_python call
On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 09:20:47PM +0300, Jari Aalto wrote: > Packaging with dh-make using "single" choice, the generated > debian/control includes deprecated dh_python line. During the deb > making this is shown in message: > > dh_python: This program is deprecated, you should use dh_pysupport or > dh_pycentral instead. The examples in debhelper still use dh_python too :( Anyone know what I should replace dh_python with? Is it both? I've CC'ed the debhelper maintainer, because he needs to fix the examples, and the python list, because you guys will be copping the wrong packages if I don't fix it (and they should know python thingies). - Craig -- Craig Small GnuPG:1C1B D893 1418 2AF4 45EE 95CB C76C E5AC 12CA DFA5 http://www.enc.com.au/ csmall at : enc.com.au http://www.debian.org/ Debian GNU/Linux, software should be Free -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Bug#493888: dh-make: debian/rule template lists deprecated dh_python call
Hi Craig, thanks for contacting us (python modules/apps team). On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 08:02, Craig Small wrote: > On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 09:20:47PM +0300, Jari Aalto wrote: >> Packaging with dh-make using "single" choice, the generated >> debian/control includes deprecated dh_python line. During the deb >> making this is shown in message: >> >> dh_python: This program is deprecated, you should use dh_pysupport or >> dh_pycentral instead. > > The examples in debhelper still use dh_python too :( > Anyone know what I should replace dh_python with? Is it both? > > I've CC'ed the debhelper maintainer, because he needs to fix the > examples, and the python list, because you guys will be copping the > wrong packages if I don't fix it (and they should know python thingies). We (as in packagers) are standardizing to python-support, so I think all helpers and examples should do the same. Thanks for the cooperation, -- Sandro Tosi (aka morph, morpheus, matrixhasu) My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/ Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Package names for docutils writers
Michael Schutte wrote: > I’ve considered this, of course, but I don’t know if this is really the > right thing to do given the frontend’s size (3 kiB in my case). [..] > I’m not sure whether this is desirable. Heh, no. Anyway, I'd be more than happy to rename to fit a consensus/scheme. Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org `- signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Package names for docutils writers
Hi, On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 09:55:12AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote: > Here's my reasoning. > > I no longer think ‘python-’ is an appropriate prefix for the package > name. These packages are primarily components of Docutils, so they are > “private” in that they are entirely within the context of Docutils. > Since they're not a general-use Python module, the package shouldn't > be named like one. > > So I think the following naming style is appropriate: > > docutils-reader-foo > docutils-reader-bar > docutils-transform-wibble > docutils-transform-wobble > docutils-writer-quux > docutils-writer-xyzzy > > These are components of the Docutils system; and such extensions can > be of several distinct purposes (hence “reader”, “transform”, > “writer”, etc.) Once all that's said, the rest of the name should be > answering the question “A Docutils writer for what?” (likewise for > reader, transform, etc.) > > To my knowledge there are not yet any Docutils components other than > writers packaged; but the Docutils design explicitly allows for > third-party components of many different kinds (with different > purposes, which means they would be best grouped together under > similar names). > > The component is best packaged as a library, separate from the main > tool (if any) that uses that library. Either that, or the library > package which includes an executable tool should ‘Provides: ’ a > virtual package for that tool so that the user can find it by the > logical name; this also allows an easier user migration to packaging > them separately if that decision is revisited. I like your proposal and would be ready to rename my package to fit this scheme. > For the existing components and front-end tools, I would like to see > these package names: > > docutils-writer-odt > rst2odt > docutils-writer-pdf > rst2pdf > docutils-writer-manpage > rst2man > docutils-writer-website > rest2web > docutils-writer-sphinx > sphinx python-sphinx and rest2web don’t publicly enhance docutils (which is another thing that might be worth changing). At the moment it’s really just us three. So, Chris, what do you think? :-) Cheers, -- Michael Schutte signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: pyfltk
[Mailing you directly, since I'm not sure you're on the list.] Luca Falavigna writes: > Could a sponsor have a look at it and, if fine, upload it for me? Everything appears to be order; given that I am not only a team member (albeit merely for the sake of one small module, python-dsv) but Debian's fltk1.1 maintainer, I'm probably the natural choice of sponsor, and will proceed to upload the package within the next few days unless somebody else chooses to step in. Thanks for putting the package together. -- Aaron M. Ucko, KB1CJC (amu at alum.mit.edu, ucko at debian.org) http://www.mit.edu/~amu/ | http://stuff.mit.edu/cgi/finger/?...@monk.mit.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Package names for docutils writers
Michael Schutte wrote: > > So I think the following naming style is appropriate: > > > > docutils-reader-foo [..] > > These are components of the Docutils system; and such extensions can > > be of several distinct purposes (hence “reader”, “transform”, > > “writer”, etc.) [..] > At the moment it’s really just us three. So, Chris, what do you > think? :-) Ah, I like this. We all agreed? Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org `- signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Package names for docutils writers
Chris Lamb writes: > Michael Schutte wrote: > > > At the moment it’s really just us three. So, Chris, what do you > > think? :-) > > Ah, I like this. We all agreed? So far, yes. Let's give the discussion a week of elapsed time (Michael's original message has the field ‘Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 16:55:03 +0100’) to allow other potential contributions a chance to appear. If there are no substantive changes needed by next Wednesday, I think we should call it the consensus and do it. Speaking of which, does this mean the source packages should be renamed? How does on go about doing that, exactly? -- \ “It takes a big man to cry, but it takes a bigger man to laugh | `\at that man.” —Jack Handey | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
