On Thu, 14 Aug 2014, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> What would probably work better would be to add the python library
> inside upstream code.
That would work as well.
> But then we have another issue: the Python module is supposed to be
> packaged as python-<something>, and the JS libs are supposed to be
> packaged as libjs-<something>. So we'd have to break one or the other
> convention.
No. Provides exist for a reason.
> I don't think that's desirable to do. We don't want to break automatic
> dependency calculation by dh_python{2,3} either.
You can add those to the libjs-* source packages.
> The important bit is that upstream requires version X of
> python-xstatic-jquery because it needs version X of jquery. When we have
That is *even more* reason to merge the packaging of the
xstatic things with the packaging of the libraries they
provide!
> The XStatic package itself doesn't contain much but the Python
> wrapper, so it's not a big deal (it's very simplistic Python code).
That’s a good argument in favour of integrating the python
side into the Debian packages of the upstreams of the xstatic
packages.
> static files libraries. In fact, XStatic has been created upstream with
> distributions in mind, and I find it very nice of them. It's indeed
> solving the problem, even if that's some non-negligible work at first to
> do the python-xstatic-* packaging.
That doesn’t mean we have to implement the API the same way.
Integrating something into the libjs-* packages to provide
xstatic would also fulfil that, and use the very nice thing
upstream made, just not the same way to there.
bye,
//mirabilos
--
[16:04:33] bkix: "veni vidi violini"
[16:04:45] bkix: "ich kam, sah und vergeigte"...
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
https://lists.debian.org/alpine.deb.2.11.1408151115370.23...@tglase.lan.tarent.de
