Re: python-central vs python-support
Joe Wreschnig writes:
> On Sun, 2006-06-04 at 20:56 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > now you know a bit better the policy (or at least the generic idea, feel
> > free to discuss details further),
>
> No. After the previous thread I am still in the dark on:
> - Tight upper dependencies. We you just incorrect, or are they
> actually required?
Tight upper dependency are required for packages containing extension
modules. For packages containing just modules, they not strictly
required, but as soon as an application depending on a non-standard
module, which the package doesn't yet provide, you have to upload it
again to i.e. add the Provides: python2.5-foo. Note that we can do
such an upload using a binary NMU.
> - python2.x-* packages -- are they needed? desirable?
> Steve and Matthias gave different answers, and if they're present
> migrations end up just as fragile as they are now.
No, not different answers. They may be needed, if an extension get's
too big to be included in one package, or if the maintainer of the
package does not want to package it that way. The consequence is that
every module or extension depending directly or indirectly on it must
be packages using the python2.x-* schema or else the dependencies are
broken for non-default python versions.
> > 2/ Extensions can't be shared between several python versions so they need to
> > be compiled once for each. The packaging needs to be modified to do those
> > compilations. We really need a tool (maybe dh_python with a special flag)
> > to generate dynamically the list of python version that the package must
> > be compiled with. The .so files must be installed in /usr/lib/python2.X/
> > and the associated .py files may be moved to a shared directory (either
> > the python-support or python-central directory).
>
> Was there consensus about whether or not extensions for all versions
> should be included in one binary package? This was not mentioned in your
> policy email. I'm ambivalent on the issue, I guess, but we should choose
> one way or the other.
it was agreed to put them into one package, the advantage beeing that
once you have support for the python version you switch from and the
version you switch to, you do not have ro reupload the package.
> > * already in the archive, works, well tested
>
> This IMO is the most important part. It's here, and we're using it.
> python-central has "right arond the corner" for months. Many modules are
> already using -support, and it integrates very easily with any project
> using distutils. With proper debhelper integration it would be even
> simpler.
it's incomplete, doesn't support extension modules, and the author did
already refuse to support these, stating that this would be too
complicated. No status change in the last months. I'm going to upload
python-central to unstable tomorrow, including a dh_pycentral
debhelper, which could be included in debhelper as dh_python as well.
Matthias, mostly offline 'til Monday evening
Reply to: