[Distutils] [Python Language Summit] Distutils / Packaging survey

[David Cournapeau]

zooko wrote:
> On Jan 28, 2009, at 3:45 AM, David Cournapeau wrote:
>
>>> I don't understand what are the potential problems, but so far I've
>>> been happy using stdeb to produce .deb's from my Python sdists.
>>
>> This is not the right solution for distributions maintainers: it is a
>> good tool for individual (it gives you uninstallation, etec...) but
>> .deb packages produced by stddeb are not debian-compatible, and
>> cannot be included in debian proper. This is not a critic of stddeb,
>> I think it is a very good tool and useful tool.
>
> I've heard things like this from Debian developers before, and I don't
> understand.  Please provide me with more explanation.   I don't intend
> to put words in your mouth, but I will offer a few guesses as to why
> you say stddeb can't be used for Debian proper:
>
> 1.  You want the production of .deb's from Python packages to be done
> by a human instead of automatedly, therefore stdeb can't do it.

I don't *want* human production (I think some Debian developers want to
- but that's not something that we need to care about I think). But for
non trivial packages, human intervention will always be needed: packages
which use autoconf cannot be automated either, because you may need
post/pre install scripts, you need to split doc/non doc parts, devel and
non devel parts, debug/release, etc... All of this is seen as a good
thing and some even required by Debian policy.

>
> 2.  You want the production of .deb's from Python packages to be done
> by a Debian developer instead of by the upstream developer of the
> Python package.

That's mandatory, indeed. An *official* debian package can only be done
by a debian developer, almost by definition - only official debian
developers can upload .deb to official debian repositories. This has no
consequences for the python developer, though.

>
> 3.  It would be okay for this process to be automated (or
> semi-automated), but there's some flaw in the design of stdeb which
> means it will never be able to do it right unless stdeb is rewritten
> with a new design.

There are some fundamental issues in *distutils* which make it
impossible to do it correctly at the moment, mainly the lack of metadata
about the installed files, but it looks like this point is already
understood and agreed on. I will work on the requirements,

cheers,

David