Re: Work on a current Debian Python policy (was: Lintian warnings for Python packaging?)
Le lundi 02 novembre 2009 à 21:22 +1100, Ben Finney a écrit : Is there a silent Debian Python policy drafter out there who would like to step forward? Or is this work now moribund? Bug reports concerning the Python policy have been silently ignored. I’m afraid this will last as long as the reference version is in the python-defaults package. Cheers, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “I recommend you to learn English in hope that you in `- future understand things” -- Jörg Schilling signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Work on a current Debian Python policy
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org writes: Le lundi 02 novembre 2009 à 21:22 +1100, Ben Finney a écrit : Is there a silent Debian Python policy drafter out there who would like to step forward? Or is this work now moribund? Bug reports concerning the Python policy have been silently ignored. I’m afraid this will last as long as the reference version is in the python-defaults package. (I am reading this to mean “the reference version of the Debian Python policy is in the python-defaults package”.) Okay. Clearly one way for this to improve would be for some of those bug reports to be responded to by the maintainer. In the absence of that, though, what other way forward is there? What would need to change for the reference version of the Python policy to be somewhere else? Just start referring to a different document, or something more? -- \ “The most merciful thing in the world… is the inability of the | `\human mind to correlate all its contents.” —Howard Philips | _o__)Lovecraft | Ben Finney pgpCAdS01pveA.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Work on a current Debian Python policy (was: Lintian warnings for Python packaging?)
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 19:02:21 +0100 Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org wrote: Le lundi 02 novembre 2009 à 21:22 +1100, Ben Finney a écrit : Is there a silent Debian Python policy drafter out there who would like to step forward? Or is this work now moribund? Bug reports concerning the Python policy have been silently ignored. I m afraid this will last as long as the reference version is in the python-defaults package. I'm inclined to agree. How would you suggest such a document be managed? Scott K -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Work on a current Debian Python policy
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org writes: Le lundi 02 novembre 2009 à 21:22 +1100, Ben Finney a écrit : Is there a silent Debian Python policy drafter out there who would like to step forward? Or is this work now moribund? Bug reports concerning the Python policy have been silently ignored. I’m afraid this will last as long as the reference version is in the python-defaults package. (I am reading this to mean “the reference version of the Debian Python policy is in the python-defaults package”.) Okay. Clearly one way for this to improve would be for some of those bug reports to be responded to by the maintainer. In the absence of that, though, what other way forward is there? What would need to change for the reference version of the Python policy to be somewhere else? Just start referring to a different document, or something more? -- \ “The most merciful thing in the world… is the inability of the | `\human mind to correlate all its contents.” —Howard Philips | _o__)Lovecraft | Ben Finney pgpMiLC3LSQGH.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Work on a current Debian Python policy
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 2:29 AM, Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote: (I am reading this to mean “the reference version of the Debian Python policy is in the python-defaults package”.) Okay. Clearly one way for this to improve would be for some of those bug reports to be responded to by the maintainer. In the absence of that, though, what other way forward is there? Here. What would need to change for the reference version of the Python policy to be somewhere else? Remove it from http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/python-policy/ Remove this page http://python-modules.alioth.debian.org/ (wiki is more up to date) Replace this one with wiki too and remove links. http://python-apps.alioth.debian.org/policy.html Just start referring to a different document, or something more? Point everything to wiki. Update MoinMoin to remove bugs and enable latest features that can become useful for collaboration. In particular: * Add subscription by default feature to policy pages so that everybody who edited page automatically receives updates. This will increase collaboration rate. You may forward these edits here as well. * Upgrade also fixes http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=546905 so that inserting table of content will not be a compromise between layout and technical limitations -- anatoly t. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Work on a current Debian Python policy (was: Lintian warnings for Python packaging?)
Luca Falavigna dktrkr...@debian.org writes: Scott Kitterman ha scritto: Since we currently lack anything like a maintained Python policy, I think this is putting the cart before the horse. […] […] we could wait for the new policy to be drafted, I'm not sure when this will happen, though. I don't know if anyone has even taken the reins for this recently. The last time I knew someone was actually developing a Debian Python policy was when Manoj Srivastava was drafting a document to help record some of the ad hoc practices he observed, and that work appears to have ceased sometime in 2006. The Debian wiki page on the topic, though no doubt useful to some extent, seems more a collection of tips than an attempt at a policy. Is there a silent Debian Python policy drafter out there who would like to step forward? Or is this work now moribund? -- \ “The greater the artist, the greater the doubt; perfect | `\ confidence is granted to the less talented as a consolation | _o__) prize.” —Robert Hughes | Ben Finney pgpm1ff8b8vjj.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Work on a current Debian Python policy (was: Lintian warnings for Python packaging?)
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Scott Kitterman deb...@kitterman.com wrote: I'm not aware of any ongoing work. I would be willing to help work on such a thing, but we currently lack a good mechanism for developing/approving such a policy. With clear policy and precise goal you won't need approving mechanism to see if they work for defined set of cases or not. While everybody want policy just to know how to do thing properly, there are in fact very few people who really understand how complicated is the task of maintaining python code, modules and applications. When there is precise goal, next action is to collect scenarios for the whole install/update/remove lifecycle of Python code in Debian. Only after this step is complete it is possible to start drafting self-explanatory architecture that will be capable to support all these scenarios. There is no need in mechanism for developing a policy - in wiki everybody can start contributing immediately with a full history of changes. There can be a sprint though to force the progress and keep work focused. To make it easier to contribute scenarios a template can come handy. I've edited http://wiki.debian.org/DebianPython to be concise introduction into the problems with Python code packaging, summarized issues with the current policy, but still can't provide vision for a new policy. That's why I'd like to see http://wiki.debian.org/DebianPython/Tutorial with step-by-step instructions and explanations of the reasons why things should be done in some particular way, what problems arise if they won't done as requested, and how it makes maintenance easier. There can be a series of tutorials starting with most basic packaging scenario (one module) and gradually move to most complicated (application with several C-modules installed in virtualenv). There is a difference in Scenario and Tutorial in that Tutorial is based on some policy draft while Scenario concentrates on a very-very source of the problem. I.e. scenario is As a user, I want some stable version of that Python module to be present for my scripts in my Debian installation or As an admin, I want to install Trac in isolated environment and upgrade it separately as security fixes are coming out. -- anatoly t. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Work on a current Debian Python policy (was: Lintian warnings for Python packaging?)
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 16:50:00 +0300 anatoly techtonik techto...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Scott Kitterman deb...@kitterman.com wrote: I'm not aware of any ongoing work. I would be willing to help work on such a thing, but we currently lack a good mechanism for developing/approving such a policy. With clear policy and precise goal you won't need approving mechanism to see if they work for defined set of cases or not. ... Yes and we have neither right now. Writing stuff on a wiki won't change that. Until we have a legitimate Python policy, all we have to base decisions on is running code. All the code doesn't agree. Scott K P.S. I am subscribed to the list, so no need to cc me. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
