#431087: Packages iteration return dictionaries

[John Wright]

On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 10:53:41AM +0100, James Westby wrote:
> On (30/06/07 19:22), John Wright wrote:
> > This would be the easiest way.  I'll publish a branch that does this
> > tonight.  I'm not sure what needs to happen to get the deb822 source
> > package removed from sid, though.
> > 
> > If people object to it being a top-level module rather than inside
> > debian_bundle, I don't think we'd affect too many people by moving it.
> 
> A couple of packages would break if it happened with no transition
> period, notably one of mine then I would appreciate such a period, or
> coordinated uploads.

Ok, I've pushed a branch that installs to debian_bundle, but also has a
top-level module which just does a "from debian_bundle.deb822 import *":
  http://bzr.debian.org/bzr/pkg-python-debian/people/jsw/deb822_in_debian_bundle
I also have a branch that has deb822 in its own module (but still
provided by the python-debian binary):
  http://bzr.debian.org/bzr/pkg-python-debian/people/jsw/deb822_integration

I think I like it better inside debian_bundle, with the top-level
transition module for now...
  
> > An interesting question, if slightly off-topic: why a debian_bundle
> > package, rather than just a debian package, e.g.:
> > 
> >   from debian import debtags
> > 
> > Since we produce a binary called python-debian, it would make sense if
> > the package we provide is called debian, rather than debian_bundle.
> > (If this was discussed previously, sorry for bringing it back up...)
> > 
> 
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/08/msg00274.html
> 
> dato's original plan was to use debian_bundle and then possibly move to
> debian if something stable and consistent emerged.

I see.  Well, the branch certainly isn't dead. :)  I'd like to see this
happen soon, but I guess we first need to decide exactly what needs to
happen first.

Thanks,
John