Luke Macken wrote:
From a brief look at the docs, it is a tool to create setup.py files so it probably doesn't need the Packaging Committee to get involved. However, it would be nice to get it packaged and into Fedora....On Sun, Apr 06, 2008 at 04:25:23PM -0400, Casey Dahlin wrote:Kevin Kofler wrote:For python packages, the correct solution would be a setup.py file using the disthelper system in python.I wrote:Actually, in this case, it's 100% Python, so there's no compilation needed at all. Thus I don't see what's wrong with only an install.sh in this case!It is preferred to have separate compilation and installation steps ratherWhy use an overengineered system like autotools when all you need is to copy some files to some predefined directories?Kevin KoflerIf you believe that disthelper is the "correct" way to package Python modules, I would suggest you propose it to the Packaging committee, as our current Python packaging guidelines only make note of distutils and setuptool. I'm not opposed to disthelper, but since it's not even in Fedora, I don't see it as a reasonable solution to start recommending to packagers.
-Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
