[Fedora-packaging] Re: what policy for python egg files

[Axel Thimm]

On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 07:43:04PM -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> >>>>> "TK" == Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger at gmail.com> writes:
> 
> TK> I think tibbs had the opposite viewpoint but I don't remember if
> TK> we got to a point where he decided it didn't matter or we came to
> TK> an agreement or just let it drop.
> 
> I guess the point is that I can't figure out what additional value it
> adds, and in general it's bad to package up something that's
> completely needless.

egg is a packaging method that is orthogonal to what we use. Leaving
the eggs around may get users to start using egg-installation and get
files on the system unregistered by rpm.

Or not? If the above is correct eggs should even be banned just as
other non-native package formats are banned (debs or tarballs for
example).
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20061216/8abbc9e2/attachment.sig>