Re: [RFH] rpm packaging failure

From: Johan Herland <johan@herland.net>
Date: Jan 31, 2010, 00:06 UTC
Message-ID: <201001310106.52303.johan@herland.net>
In-Reply-To: <7vsk9nsemh.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Saturday 30 January 2010, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 15 quoted lines

> The files that are problematic are only infrastructure bits to support
> "remote helpers written in Python" (which we don't ship at all yet).
> 
> Once we start shipping real remote helpers, separating Python bits out
> into its own package would make a lot of sense.  People who want to use
> foreign scm helpers that happen to be written in Python would need it,
>  and all others don't.
> 
> But I suspect that a safer alternative at least for 1.7.0 would be to
> leave these files out altogether.  As I understand the current state, it
> is an unused but required package dependency on Python, a downside
>  without an upside.  Is it Ok with "remote helpers in Python" folks (I
>  think Sverre and Johan are principal parties), or did I miss some reason
>  that these need to be installed/installable, perhaps to support third
>  party packages that already exist?

AFAICS, there's no reason why these should be installed without anything actually using them. Although I defer to Sverre, who did the last work in this area.

...Johan