At Mon, 31 Jan 2011 19:44:22 -0500, Luke Shumaker wrote: > > On Mon, 2011-01-31 at 16:24 +0000, Brian Gough wrote: > > At Sat, 29 Jan 2011 00:51:50 -0500, > > Luke Shumaker wrote: > > > This updates to the latest non-beta release of Bazaar, and adds Python, > > > which is needed by Bazaar. > > > > > > For Bazaar, GPG currently gives back a message about the public key not > > > being found. > > > > > > For Python, I cannot figure out how to fetch the sig file (see the > > > Makefile for info). The public keys for Python are at > > > > Thanks for the Bazaar patch. > > > > I've been reluctant to add Python as a full dependency, due to its > > size and the fact that most people will have it installed already. > > > > I think we really need some kind of mechanism to specify system > > packages like python-dev and tell the user to "apt-get install > > python-dev" (or whatever is appropriate on their system) if needed. > > I've been thinking about a system to tag a package as installed by > another source, and to treat it as successfully installed. This gives > me two questions: > 1) Would you accept such a patch?
Yes > 2) Would I have to maintain compatibility with existing `.gar/', > `cookies/' and such? Not that I plan on breaking it, but it will > probably affect design decisions. The .gar stuff shouldn't be needed, cookies would be. Essentially what is needed is a Makefile with an install target that creates the appropriate cookie if the package is found on the system, and otherwise prints a message telling the user the necessary 'apt-get' command or similar. Then it can just be specified as a normal dependency.
