pkgsrc-Bugs archive

[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 <>
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
 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
 Le 15/01/13 22:30, Klaus Klein a écrit :
 > The following reply was made to PR pkg/47381; it has been noted by GNATS.
 > From: Klaus Klein <>
 > To:
 > Cc:,, 
 > Subject: Re: pkg/47381 (add pkgsrc/www/py-werkzeug and py-werkzeug-html-docs
 >   0.8.3)
 > 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.
 >   Thanks
 >   - Klaus
 Hello, my [initial] approach,  naïve 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 
 pieces parts.
 (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 
 python packages.
 What would be nice is perhaps a more comprehensive guideline for pkgsrc 
 python packages.
 Richard PALO
 TNT PACA, dénomination commerciale de la société 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
 tél: fax:
 » Avant d'imprimer, pensez aux conséquences environnementales «
 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=utf-8;
 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
 Content-Disposition: attachment;

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index