[Mageia-dev] Python Packaging Policy

Tue Jan 18 00:54:09 CET 2011

Le lundi 17 janvier 2011 à 21:03 +0100, philippe makowski a écrit :
+> 2011/1/17 Michael scherer <misc at zarb.org>:
+> > On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 06:15:52PM +0100, philippe makowski wrote:
+> >> Hi,
+> >>
+> >> I though that I can find more time to work on this week end, but
+> >> unfortunately it was not the case.
+> >>
+> >> The Mandriva doc is really not a good starter
+> >> (http://wiki.mandriva.com/en/Python_packaging_policy)
+> >
+> > That's just a draft, but as the one that wrote the draft, could I
+> > know what is wrong with what was written so far ?
+> >
+> nothing except it is just a draft ;)
+
+Well, i just didn't think i had the authority to impose it, nor much
+time to discuss it, so I never removed the draft label.
+
+> >> so I propose to use the Fedora one
+> >> (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python) with some cleaning.
+> >>
+> >> Can we provide  same macros as in In Fedora 13 and greater ?
+> >>
+> >> Do you see any major problem with the Fedora policy ?
+> >
+> > First they make plan for having more than one version of python, something
+> > that I always told I will not do since no one stepped to do much to help
+> > on the transition. In short, as long the python team will in practice be only me
+> > ( and in practice, I mean "people who effectivly commit" ), we will have only 1 supported
+> > version of the stack.
+> > ( I consider python 3 to be a different language, because of the
+> > source level incompatibility ).
+> >
+> > There is also the issue on bytecompilation ( https://qa.mandriva.com/show_bug.cgi?id=50484 ).
+> > I have exposed there the various problem, and apart from explaining
+> > that the solution I chosed was not better than the other, no one gave a compeling
+> > argument into one or the others alternatives.
+> >
+> > Finally, a vast part of the policy is handling 2to3, a topic that we didn't discuss
+> > at all, and I would not be confortable to adopt it without first looking at it and
+> > discussing it.
+> >
+> > Not to mention that our policy draft speak of thing they do not include
+> > ( like naming policy, for a start ).
+> >
+> No problem, I understand perfectly
+> so let start with the Mandriva draft
+
+We can merge part of their policy , I am not against it, I just think we
+should not adopt everything :)
+-- 
+Michael Scherer
+
+