Re: PythonCard packaging advice?
> In general, you have a single source package (e.g. python-pythoncard) which > builds/installs for each available Python version (and Build-Depends on the > -dev version for each of those, obviously) into a python-pythoncard > package, and an empty python-pythoncard package that Depends on the > currently-preferred python version (2.2 at the moment.) I understand. Thanks. I'll go rework my package now. :) KEN -- Kenneth J. Pronovici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Personal Homepage: http://www.skyjammer.com/~pronovic/ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759 pgpHvYVsyKqzv.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PythonCard packaging advice?
> > > This is getting a bit more complicated than I expected it to be. I'd > > > appreciate any advice you can give me. > > I don't know why you split docs and samples, I'd put them in one package, > > the samples go into /usr/share/doc//examples/. The doc package > > depending on either of the library packages. The user can decide > > which pythoncard version to use for the samples. > > I guess this is part of my problem. I know that generally, examples go > where you've suggested. Most of the time, though, this seems to be for > just a few examples that never really get run but are just used as a > starting point. I am incorrect on this point. I apologize. One good counter-example is wxwin2.4-examples, which includes 957 example files, all installed to /usr/share/doc/wxwin2.4-examples/. I should place the samples in the documentation directory instead of /usr/share. KEN -- Kenneth J. Pronovici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Personal Homepage: http://www.skyjammer.com/~pronovic/ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759 pgpEhJCTmoka3.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PythonCard packaging advice?
On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 10:59:17AM -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote: > > > I've now noticed that this doesn't conform to policy and I'm a little > > > confused about what packages I should provide. > > Only the name of the module package is against policy - it should be > > python-pythoncard. > I'm going to take this to mean python2.2-pythoncard/python2.3-pythoncard > based on the rest of your reply. Let me know if I'm wrong. In general, you have a single source package (e.g. python-pythoncard) which builds/installs for each available Python version (and Build-Depends on the -dev version for each of those, obviously) into a python-pythoncard package, and an empty python-pythoncard package that Depends on the currently-preferred python version (2.2 at the moment.) There are several examples to be found in current unstable; practically all hits on: apt-cache search --names-only python2.2- You can just apt-get source one of them, or a few of them, and see how they did it. I did it with python-opengl2 using a single variable in debian/rules holding all to-be-built-against Python versions, but you can also check the dependencies in your own controls file, so you only have to change one location when adding Python versions. > Anyway, I had been thinking that /usr/share/pythoncard was a better > place for a set of samples this big. If I'm wrong about that, I guess > I'll move the samples into /usr/share/doc/pythoncard along with the rest > of the documentation. The examples typically belong to the documentation. If people really worry about the diskspace, they aren't likely to install the documentation either. Be sure to either refer people from /usr/share/doc/python-pythoncard/ to /usr/share/doc/python-pythoncard-doc (or wherever you install it) or have your -doc package install the docs in /usr/share/doc/python-pythoncard, though. > > python2.2-pythoncard Depends: python2.2 > > python2.3-pythoncard Depends: python2.3 > > pythoncard-doc Depends: python2.2-pythoncard | python2.3-pythoncard > To the point of the other reply on this thread, why make the docs depend > on the other two packages? In case it matters, the documentation I > split off is mostly developer documentation. You're thinking the wrong way around. In the above example, pythoncard-doc depends on python2.2-pythoncard or python2.3-pythoncard. You need either of the latter two installed to install the former. In other words, you can't install pythoncard-doc (with examples) if you don't have the python libraries installed to actually run the examples or your own developed code :) Makes sense, right ? -- Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!
Re: PythonCard packaging advice?
> > I've now noticed that this doesn't conform to policy and I'm a little > > confused about what packages I should provide. > Only the name of the module package is against policy - it should be > python-pythoncard. I'm going to take this to mean python2.2-pythoncard/python2.3-pythoncard based on the rest of your reply. Let me know if I'm wrong. > > This is getting a bit more complicated than I expected it to be. I'd > > appreciate any advice you can give me. > I don't know why you split docs and samples, I'd put them in one package, > the samples go into /usr/share/doc//examples/. The doc package > depending on either of the library packages. The user can decide > which pythoncard version to use for the samples. I guess this is part of my problem. I know that generally, examples go where you've suggested. Most of the time, though, this seems to be for just a few examples that never really get run but are just used as a starting point. The PythonCard samples are as much a demo or advertisement as a set of examples. There's a GUI front-end that is used to interactively pick-and-choose which of the 43 separate sample programs to run. Even with no .pyc or .pyo files in the samples directory, it takes up more space than the installed site-packages directory. I figured that someone who just wanted to depend on the PythonCard modules would not necessarily want to install all 43 sample programs. Anyway, I had been thinking that /usr/share/pythoncard was a better place for a set of samples this big. If I'm wrong about that, I guess I'll move the samples into /usr/share/doc/pythoncard along with the rest of the documentation. > python2.2-pythoncard Depends: python2.2 > python2.3-pythoncard Depends: python2.3 > pythoncard-doc Depends: python2.2-pythoncard | python2.3-pythoncard To the point of the other reply on this thread, why make the docs depend on the other two packages? In case it matters, the documentation I split off is mostly developer documentation. KEN -- Kenneth J. Pronovici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Personal Homepage: http://www.skyjammer.com/~pronovic/ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759 pgphW2ta3TxX4.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PythonCard packaging advice?
tis 2003-02-04 klockan 12.46 skrev Bastian Kleineidam: > > This is getting a bit more complicated than I expected it to be. I'd > > appreciate any advice you can give me. > I don't know why you split docs and samples, I'd put them in one package, > the samples go into /usr/share/doc//examples/. The doc package > depending on either of the library packages. The user can decide > which pythoncard version to use for the samples. > > python2.2-pythoncard Depends: python2.2 > python2.3-pythoncard Depends: python2.3 > pythoncard-doc Depends: python2.2-pythoncard | python2.3-pythoncard Why Depends? If the files are in 'examples' I'd say it should be a Suggests. /Martin signature.asc Description: Detta är en digitalt signerad meddelandedel
Re: PythonCard packaging advice?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 03:38:11PM -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote: > I've now noticed that this doesn't conform to policy and I'm a little > confused about what packages I should provide. Only the name of the module package is against policy - it should be python-pythoncard. > Should I provide the package python-pythoncard that depends on on python > (>=2.2), python (<<2.3), or should I instead provide python2.2-pythoncard > that depends on python2.2 and also python2.3-pythoncard that depends on > python2.3? See below. > This is getting a bit more complicated than I expected it to be. I'd > appreciate any advice you can give me. I don't know why you split docs and samples, I'd put them in one package, the samples go into /usr/share/doc//examples/. The doc package depending on either of the library packages. The user can decide which pythoncard version to use for the samples. python2.2-pythoncard Depends: python2.2 python2.3-pythoncard Depends: python2.3 pythoncard-doc Depends: python2.2-pythoncard | python2.3-pythoncard Greetings, - -- Bastian Kleineidam Atombombe · Plutonium · Fat Man · Do it Yourself · Tim Taylor -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+P6gJeBwlBDLsbz4RAiuIAJ9JnatTa0a8+KFCbbG7W6bMAA8cNwCfUtxy 80MB+Mw9N6GDtsjxd0sGn6k= =hNRy -END PGP SIGNATURE-
