On Sat, 2006-09-02 at 16:40 +0200, Sander Hoentjen wrote: > On Sat, 2006-09-02 at 16:34 +0200, Sander Hoentjen wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I am working on packaging cohoba, this is a python gui client/mission > > control for telepathy. It has one small .c file, so I have a few > > questions: > > - because of the .c file the package has to by arch-specific i guess. Is > > there a strong preference to package as noarch? (the c part is used for > > changing the name for killall, so to put it as noarch i can just leave > > that part out (not being able to killall cohoba), or add a dependency on > > python-ctypes and add a small patch to cohoba to use ctypes to do it > > instead) > > If it can use all pure python, that would be best for the upstream project. Why reinvent the wheel? > i didn't want to send yet, so i'll continue: > - should i just not care about arch vs noarch and package as arch > specific, then where must i place the modules, all in python_sitelib and > only osutils (the c one) in python_sitearch? > > thanks for any pointers > Due to the way that python works, if any part of a python's module is arch specific (sitearch), the entire thing has to go into sitearch. Python will not import part from sitearch and part from sitelib. So it'd all have to go in sitearch. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
