Author kbk
Date 2005-03-19.23:18:47
SpamBayes Score
Marked as misclassified
Logged In: YES 

In response to jafo's request for comments on python-dev:

1. This facility should be documented in the Python Module docs.
A section should be introduced in "Distributing Python Modules"
after the 5.2 Creating RPM Packages.  Also, the reference
disutils.command.bdist_deb should be supplied.
The fact that the rest of distutils is 'lightly' documented is no 
excuse :-)

2. The README.bdist_deb should be folded into the doc strings
for the two modules (except the change info should be left behind
in the patch).

3. The existing doc strings in the two modules are not always 
in standard form, and could be more extensive.

4. There are triple quoted block comments in the code.  These 
should be # comment blocks, cf. PEP8 and PEP 257.  You 
don't use doc strings to document variables.

5. probably belongs in distutils/command/

6. I would like it better if the default was to build the source
package, and that would be consistent with bdist_rpm's action.

7. I'm not entirely happy with the overall design: it seems there
are two ways to go.  First, run bdist_deb, which give you a 
package which isn't debian compliant; there's no 
debian/changelog.  Second, you can run dh_make, which will
'debianize' the Python source.  This can only be done once, and
then the recommendation is to use the standard Debian tools
to create the packages.  In this second case, apparently you
can't use bdist_deb, nor do you have a convenient way of
updating when the Python code changes, if I understand the
README.bdist_deb correctly.  If these impressions are correct,
it's a lot of code for relatively little effect, at least at its current
level of development.

8. What about alberanid's last comment?

8. Do we have a commitment from Dairiki to maintain this code
for at least a couple of years?
Date User Action Args
2007-08-23 15:40:24adminlinkissue1054967 messages
2007-08-23 15:40:24admincreate