Rpm for Fedora Extra

My preference is for 3 separate packages - matplotlib which depends on
dateutils and pytz.

I think the problem is caused by matplotlib itself. I don't think that
matplotlib should repackage dateutils and pytz which are already
independent packages. I understand that John included them initially in
order to make matplotlib easier to download and install, which I
understand. But now that matplotlib is being packaged for distributions
it creates unnecessary extra work for the matplotlib packagers.

Regards
Steve

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com

···

On Fri, 2005-07-01 at 10:15 -0700, matplotlib-users-request@lists.sourceforge.net wrote:

Hi all,
  I have been following this list for some time, as well as using and
spreading the news about matplotlib for all people I know and use
python. :slight_smile:

  I would like also to thank all the developers for all the amazing work
that has been done on matplotlib, it helps me a lot in my work.

  Now the reason why I am writing to this list is to ask what is the
preferred policy for packaging matplotlib as an rpm for FC4. Yesterday was
accepted in Fedora Extras and so it should take a few days to be available.

  The packager choose to package matplotlib (called python-matplotlib) with
both dateutils and pytz packaged together while I use to package it as 3
separate packages.

  What is the opinion of the packager/developers here? Which scheme do you
prefer?

        Thanks again for this nice package.