Hi,
Bob Tanner:
On Monday 21 November 2005 09:09 am, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
$ dpkg -L python2.4-formencode
[...]
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/FormEncode-0.4-py2.4.egg
/usr/share/doc/python2.4-formencode/copyright
/usr/share/doc/python2.4-formencode/changelog.Debian.gz
???
Matthias Urlichs wrote:
If it break Debian policies, please point me to the appropriate
section(s) and documents. I wasn't able to find any related to python
module packaging.
zless /usr/share/doc/python/python-policy.txt.gz
I put a zip_safe = False into the setup.py, the prevents the egg
Bob Tanner writes:
I'm working around the problem by installing a formencode.pth pointing to
the /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/FormEncode-0.4-py2.4.egg directory.
This isn't a problem, it's just that the Debian policy isn't
up-to-date. Python eggs install this way, and many packages
On Monday 21 November 2005 05:16 pm, you wrote:
Is Debian python policy dated or wrong?
Debian moving a different direction then upstream python?
surely our policy needs to adopt the new schema. I don't think it's
dated or wrong. there are things which we do want to prevent:
- package
Bob Tanner wrote:
Note also that in many cases, the package will be a single .egg *file*,
(analagous to a Java .jar file) rather than a directory, and files are
preferable to directories in most cases as they make Python import
processing faster.
I don't think Debian should use the egg
On Tuesday 22 November 2005 12:15 am, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
I don't think Debian should use the egg structure. It apparently relies
on building a long sys.path (even though through only a single .pth
file);
I'm not sure of how .eggs are implemented, but I'm going to cross-post this
info to
Bob Tanner writes:
If there is no way to install the package directly into site-packages
using the provided setup.py, I think setup.py should be
modified/ignored.
Won't this mean a total re-write of cdbs since it specifically looks for
setup.py?
yes, if cdbs doesn't allow that. you
7 matches
Mail list logo
