Re: [RFH] rpm packaging failure

[Johan Herland <johan@herland.net>]

On Saturday 30 January 2010, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> 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