Re: Installed wajig 0.2.11-1 (i386 source)

2002-01-12 Thread Malcolm Parsons
On Sat, Jan 12, 2002 at 01:32:06AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote: I don't care what FUD is, but apparently I still don't know the answer to my initial question. How should python scripts be packaged ? Unless something else in the package is architecture dependent, the package should be

Re: Installed wajig 0.2.11-1 (i386 source)

2002-01-11 Thread Steve Kowalik
At 11:17 am, Friday, January 11 2002, Adam Heath mumbled: That's a bug in python2.{1,2} then. What's the point of having a platform neutral 'compiled' version of a script if the format changes every time the wind changes direction? FUD. Pure FUD. --

Re: Installed wajig 0.2.11-1 (i386 source)

2002-01-11 Thread Junichi Uekawa
Steve Kowalik [EMAIL PROTECTED] cum veritate scripsit: That's a bug in python2.{1,2} then. What's the point of having a platform neutral 'compiled' version of a script if the format changes every time the wind changes direction? FUD. Pure FUD. I don't care what FUD is, but apparently I

Re: Installed wajig 0.2.11-1 (i386 source)

2002-01-10 Thread Malcolm Parsons
On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 09:07:06PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote: On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, Malcolm Parsons wrote: python modules should be supplied as source, and byte compiled in the postinst. No, they should be byte compiled during package creation. There is no point byte compiling during

Re: Installed wajig 0.2.11-1 (i386 source)

2002-01-10 Thread Adam Heath
On Thu, 10 Jan 2002, Malcolm Parsons wrote: There is no point byte compiling during package creation, as every time the python2.{1,2} packages are upgraded, every .py file is byte compiled again anyway: python2.2.postinst: for i in $DIRLIST ; do /usr/bin/python2.2 -O

Re: Installed wajig 0.2.11-1 (i386 source)

2002-01-09 Thread Junichi Uekawa
On Tue, 08 Jan 2002 15:13:08 -0500 Dirk Eddelbuettel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Description: wajig - Simplified Debian package management front end Changes: wajig (0.2.11-1) unstable; urgency=low . * Upgraded to new upstream release Files: e2a0aaa255f1fd9404ccc176c82969c2 619

Re: Installed wajig 0.2.11-1 (i386 source)

2002-01-09 Thread Dirk Eddelbuettel
On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 03:06:52PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote: On Tue, 08 Jan 2002 15:13:08 -0500 Dirk Eddelbuettel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Description: wajig - Simplified Debian package management front end Changes: wajig (0.2.11-1) unstable; urgency=low . *

Re: Installed wajig 0.2.11-1 (i386 source)

2002-01-09 Thread Junichi Uekawa
Dirk Eddelbuettel [EMAIL PROTECTED] cum veritate scripsit: Is byte-compiled python script platform-dependent? It is my (naive) understanding that it is not. Is that not correct? Or does an i386 .pyc/.pyo work on other architectures? I am not quite sure. I also wondered if it was

Re: Installed wajig 0.2.11-1 (i386 source)

2002-01-09 Thread Malcolm Parsons
On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 07:01:15AM -0600, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 03:06:52PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote: Is byte-compiled python script platform-dependent? Is that not correct? Or does an i386 .pyc/.pyo work on other architectures? .pyc and .pyo files are

Re: Installed wajig 0.2.11-1 (i386 source)

2002-01-09 Thread Adam Heath
On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, Malcolm Parsons wrote: python modules should be supplied as source, and byte compiled in the postinst. No, they should be byte compiled during package creation.