On 2012-04-22 22:19, Nicolas Duboc wrote: > Hi, > Hi, :)
> As the maintainer of the jython package, I agree that these three > files should not be installed. My next upload of the package will > remove them and all jython tests, mainly because it will save space. > > Indeed I think this check is a bit too strict anyway for two reasons: > > 1. These files are actually test data for the Python object file > parsers of Jython. I think they are out of scope of the Python > policy. [...] > Personally, I think that (e.g.) autopkgtest might be a better alternative than shipping the tests in the binary package. > So this check should at least be overridable. > The FTP-masters are the authoritative source of overridable tags, we merely import their lists and mark affected tags accordingly. > 2. The Python policy section "2.6 Modules Byte-Compilation" reads > """If a binary package provides any binary-independent modules (foo.py > files), the corresponding byte-compiled modules (foo.pyc files) and > optimized modules (foo.pyo files) must not ship in the package.""" > But there is no associated source file (*.py) installed alongside > these *.pyc files. So I think they should have been ignored by the > check. > > Regards, > By your argument, wouldn't that allow shipping a package where only ".pyo" or/and ".pyc" files are shipped without any .py at all? If so, it sounds more like an undesired loop-hole that should be closed to me. Anyhow, python is not my strong suit and I can be convinced to update Lintian if there is a conseus for it. However, I would like to see the Python Policy clarify such an exception to its ยง2.6. ~Niels -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
