[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: pkg/47381 (add pkgsrc/www/py-werkzeug and py-werkzeug-html-docs 0.8.3)
The following reply was made to PR pkg/47381; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Richard PALO <Richard.PALO%baou.fr@localhost>
Subject: Re: pkg/47381 (add pkgsrc/www/py-werkzeug and py-werkzeug-html-docs
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 07:43:04 +0100
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Le 15/01/13 22:30, Klaus Klein a Ã©crit :
> The following reply was made to PR pkg/47381; it has been noted by GNATS.
> From: Klaus Klein <kleink%kleink.org@localhost>
> To: gnats-bugs%NetBSD.org@localhost
> Cc: pkg-manager%netbsd.org@localhost, pkgsrc-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost,
> Subject: Re: pkg/47381 (add pkgsrc/www/py-werkzeug and py-werkzeug-html-docs
> Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:26:06 -0800
> Hi Richard,
> thanks for your report. (I've actually had a packaged werkzeug
> around for months, and when I committed it I only checked against
> prior art in wip, otherwise I'd have simply used yours as a base.)
> I'm fixing py-werkzeug right now (in particular the testsuite
> installation/PLIST fix); however, there are two issues I'd like to
> have your feedback about:
> 1) What's the point of packaging the artwork files - neither code nor
> (generated) docs reference those? (AUTHORS, along with CHANGES,
> is another matter - the former gets referenced after all.)
> In other words: Do you see (or better: have) use for those?
> 2) I disagree with compiling the examples, particularly
> since they live outside of PYSITELIB, nor is there prior art for
> such pratice.
> - Klaus
Hello, my [initial] approach, naÃ¯ve as it is, was to install via pkgsrc
*all* the package bits such that an end user will not have look to
install the pkgsrc package *and* look for the base package for various
(I should mention as well that I"m somewhere towards the beginning of
the steep learning curve of pkgsrc so am struggling to assimilate the
various intertwined pieces, doing the best my time will allow me).
As for 2 I'm both for and against. My first reaction was why is it
outside of PYSITELIB in the first place? I reasoned that the upstream
package developer simply didn't put it there nor is it documented there.
Therefore, my reasoning suggested that everything else should go into
share/... in order to avoid having to seek out the upstream package (see
And since it is python, and everything that goes into PYSITELIB is
compiled, I also built the examples.
I don't feel strongly at all that it is a necessity, though.
In particular, in order to ensure the correct python interpreter is run,
perhaps it *is* better to put the examples in PYSITELIB like some other
What would be nice is perhaps a more comprehensive guideline for pkgsrc
TNT PACA, dÃ©nomination commerciale de la sociÃ©tÃ© BAOU
SAS au capital de 50.000 â?¬ - RCS TOULON 441 322 385 - APE 4322B
117, av Marcel Berre - ZI Camp Laurent - 83500 LA SEYNE SUR MER
tÃ©l:04.94.94.39.94 fax:04.94.87.86.67 mailto:Richard.PALO%baou.fr@localhost
Â» Avant d'imprimer, pensez aux consÃ©quences environnementales Â«
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=utf-8;
Main Index |
Thread Index |