Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #14154

Re: a review of your bumblebee-status package

Show all headers | View raw

On 2022-06-07 15:44:28, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2022 at 09:47:33AM -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
>> On 2022-06-07 07:11:15, Julian Gilbey wrote:
>> > [...]
>> > As far as I understand, versioneer (or the _version.py generated by
>> > it) uses a whole bunch of heuristics to determine the version number
>> > of the package, for example by looking at git tags and so on.  Several
>> > times, I have found that _version.py in the PyPI release of a package
>> > is a very small file (just a few lines long) stating the version
>> > number of the package, while the _version.py in GitHub is huge and
>> > doesn't work on a standalone packaged version.  If I recall correctly,
>> > In more than one package I (co-)maintain, I've gone for the PyPI
>> > version of this file.
>> 
>> Uh! So you just keep the file around altogether? That seems like a break
>> of policy...
>
> Maybe I wasn't clear: we pack the GitHub as the .orig.tar.gz and then
> apply a patch (in debian/patches) to replace _version.py with the
> version found in the PyPI package.  (There are often good reasons to
> prefer the GitHub version over the PyPI version.)  I just looked
> through my local packages and the only examples I could find were the
> now-removed python-language-server and python-jsonrpc-server.
>
> I'm not sure how this would break policy.

It seems to me that generated files shouldn't be shipped as part of the
source we distributed to users. Those files should be (re)generated at
build time.

a.

-- 
Be who you are and say what you feel
Because those who mind don't matter
And those who matter don't mind.
                         - Dr. Seuss

Back to linux.debian.maint.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: a review of your bumblebee-status package Ben Westover <kwestover.kw@gmail.com> - 2022-06-07 02:10 +0200
  Re: a review of your bumblebee-status package Ben Westover <kwestover.kw@gmail.com> - 2022-06-07 03:20 +0200
    Re: a review of your bumblebee-status package Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@debian.org> - 2022-06-07 04:30 +0200
      Re: a review of your bumblebee-status package Ben Westover <kwestover.kw@gmail.com> - 2022-06-07 04:50 +0200
        Re: a review of your bumblebee-status package Andrey Rahmatullin <wrar@debian.org> - 2022-06-07 08:20 +0200
        Re: a review of your bumblebee-status package Julian Gilbey <julian@d-and-j.net> - 2022-06-07 08:20 +0200
          Re: a review of your bumblebee-status package Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@debian.org> - 2022-06-07 15:50 +0200
            Re: a review of your bumblebee-status package Julian Gilbey <julian@d-and-j.net> - 2022-06-07 16:50 +0200
              Re: a review of your bumblebee-status package Julian Gilbey <julian@d-and-j.net> - 2022-06-07 17:00 +0200
                Re: a review of your bumblebee-status package Ben Westover <kwestover.kw@gmail.com> - 2022-06-08 00:50 +0200
                Re: a review of your bumblebee-status package Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@debian.org> - 2022-06-08 15:30 +0200
              Re: a review of your bumblebee-status package Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@debian.org> - 2022-06-07 17:00 +0200
        Re: a review of your bumblebee-status package Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@debian.org> - 2022-06-07 15:50 +0200
          Re: a review of your bumblebee-status package Julian Gilbey <julian@d-and-j.net> - 2022-06-07 17:00 +0200
            Re: a review of your bumblebee-status package Julian Gilbey <julian@d-and-j.net> - 2022-06-07 17:10 +0200
        Versioneer [was Re: a review of your bumblebee-status package] Timo Röhling <roehling@debian.org> - 2022-06-07 16:30 +0200
          Re: Versioneer [was Re: a review of your bumblebee-status package] Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> - 2022-06-08 03:30 +0200

csiph-web