From infos at cs.wustl.edu  Sat May 29 16:22:51 2004
From: infos at cs.wustl.edu (infos@cs.wustl.edu)
Date: Sat May 29 23:24:41 2004
Subject: [Catalog-sig] Catalog-sig, bright teen girls
In-Reply-To: <E5K2L1CDC56GC8FL@python.org>
References: <E5K2L1CDC56GC8FL@python.org>
Message-ID: <6G43G0JD041D4FLG@cs.wustl.edu>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/catalog-sig/attachments/20040529/742bca0c/attachment.html
From tinuviel at fluid.sparcs.net  Sun May 30 17:07:51 2004
From: tinuviel at fluid.sparcs.net (Seo Sanghyeon)
Date: Sun May 30 17:09:02 2004
Subject: [Catalog-sig] Table of Python Packages
Message-ID: <20040530210751.GA17302@fluid.sparcs.net>

For those who may be concerned: this mail is sent to
comp.lang.python, debian-python, freebsd-python, and catalog-sig.

I created a table of Python packages in Debian, FreeBSD, and Gentoo.
http://sparcs.kaist.ac.kr/~tinuviel/pypackage/list.cgi

The table is created as follow: first I made a list of all packages in
Debian Python section, Freebsd Python category, and Gentoo dev-python.
And I checked equivalence by hand, alphabetically sorted packages
by name, and wrote a small cgi script to create a table and make links
to package description pages.

Sources and data are located at the directory:
http://sparcs.kaist.ac.kr/~tinuviel/pypackage/

What do you think about this? Is this a good idea? If it is a good idea,
how can it be made more useful? Now I am thinking about adding NetBSD
packages and PyPI references...

This table shows which modules are not packaged for distributions.
Those modules would be good candidates for packaing. Perhaps maintainers
may learn from the each other.

Any other thoughts?