Python packaging rules again (was: postorius, v2)

[Hartmut Goebel <h.goebel@crazy-compilers.com>]

Hi,

I'm reposting this with a different subject, since this question is not
only related to postorius:

What do others think about the central question:

Should django be a "normal" input or a "native" one? What does this
depend on? What are the rules for?



> I'm unsure about the correct handling of django in django-XXX. Can we
> find rules for this to make future packager's life easier?
>
> Should django be a "normal" input or a "native" one? What does this
> depend on?
>
>
> Clear is: django-XXX should not "propagate" django:
>
>   * django is a framework, django-XXX is an extension for this framework.
>   * If some application is using django-XXX, I'd expect it to have
>     django specified as "input", too, since primary it is a django
>     application. Maybe even djangoXXX is an optional component
>
>
> Just for the records:
>
>   * django-XXX should propagate other django extension it requires.
>       o If some application is using django-XXX, if should not care
>         about other django extensions django-XXX requires. This is the
>         same like as it does not have to care about other python
>         packages django-XXX requires.


-- 
Regards
Hartmut Goebel

| Hartmut Goebel          | h.goebel@crazy-compilers.com               |
| www.crazy-compilers.com | compilers which you thought are impossible |