Re: [pyblosxom-users] packaging issues

On Sun, 2003-05-25 at 07:10, Wari Wahab wrote:
> Colin Walters wrote:
> 
> >I have created Debian packages, and they are currently waiting in the
> >new package queue to be installed into the archive.  However, there are
> >a few issues which if fixed would make my life easier as a packager.
> >  
> >
> Wow, that's a great thing :) I'd love to be able to `apt-get install 
> pyblosxom` :)

Soon you will :)

> Annoying ain't it? :(  That's for being extreme myopic, not knowing that 
> pyblosxom would be used by more than, erm, me.. Actually for 0.8 (or 
> planned future versions) the developers and I planned to make pyblosxom 
> dist-utils friendly, so that you can have pyblosxom core installed in 
> the system and users wishing to use it, would just need pyblosxom.cgi 
> and config.py to get things working. You can then install pyblosxom in 
> /usr/lib/python2.2/site-packages/PyBlosxom, or something like that. I've 
> just got aquainted with dist-utils and have actually fallen in love with 
> it :) Python makes it easy to do RPMs and Windows installers.

That'd be cool, the distutils definitely make making Debian packages
easier too.

> Problem is it involves doing python module import gymnastics.. But 
> anyway, I'll let config.py be where pyblosxom.cgi (or whatever we wish 
> to name it) is. The package should prbably include something like a 
> config.py-dist.

Hm.  Why not just use ConfigParser instead of loading config.py as a
Python source?  Most of what's in config.py right now is just like
strings and lists, and ConfigParser can handle that quite well.

> One of the things I want to do is to have user configurable plugin 
> location. Then pyblosxom would really be installable site wide, and let 
> users have their share of plugins. Then the rest of the plugins in 
> contrib can be located at, say, /usr/share/pyblosxom/contrib, along with 
> the license and readme files.

Makes sense.

> Plugins are already symlinkable.

True, I guess I am just suggesting that this be the suggested way to do
things :)

> >One very minor issue; currently as far as I can tell there is no COPYING
> >or LICENSE file included in the source.  The closest I could find was an
> >__license__ = "Python".  It would be nice if the full text of the Python
> >license was included in the pyblosxom distribution (and probably would
> >be better from a legalistic standpoint too).
> >  
> >
> I've been bugged by Will to about this :)

Given how many different versions of the Python license there are,
too...

> Tell you what, if I have more than five votes (you need three more:) of 
> the major changes in pyblosxom, I'd do it and release Beta2 (or RC1?): 
> Here's the things to do:
> 
> 1. Rename libs to PyBlosxom (or something like that), along with the 
> rename, this means changes to how everything import modules from libs/. 
> The change is not as simple as just renaming the directories.

Yeah, this shouldn't be too hard though, just a search/replace.

> 2. Update the previous docs that references libs/

This is a bit trickier, but still not too bad.

> 3.  Kill off libs/plugins/__init__.py and rename it to 
> PyBlosxom/plugins.py, plugins.py should be modified a bit to load 
> plugins from a specified location, and the location should not ever need 
> to have and __init__.py file at all (python module importing gymnastics 
> made possible) I'll need Will's help for this a bit, so hope that he 
> votes for it too.

Makes sense.

> 4. Include some COPYING or LICENCE files (Could you include some example 
> ones Colin?)

Well, it depends on what you want.  You could just steal the "PSF
LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR PYTHON 2.3" from the Python source.  This is
probably a good thing to ask the Python maintainers.

> 5. Create a nice dist-utils setup.py and setup.cfg files so that 
> pyblosxom can be installed site-wide.

Definitely would be cool.

> So developers (and users) do I have your votes? 

You have my user vote at least :)



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: ObjectStore.
If flattening out C++ or Java code to make your application fit in a
relational database is painful, don't do it! Check out ObjectStore.
Now part of Progress Software. http://www.objectstore.net/sourceforge