Re: Python 2.0.1; transition plans for woody
On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 04:36:28PM +0200, Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> This would mean that I upload new versions of the Python packages:
> (1) python2 (python2-base etc.) would be removed
> (2) python 2.0.1-1 (python-base etc.) would replace python 1.5.2-16
> (3) A new set of legacy packages python15 (python152 ???) for those who
> think that they depend on the old version 1.5.2.
> The transition would not be simple, though.
How does this affect upgrades?
Will potato packages that depend on python work with python 2.0.1 packages
in general? What about ones that put stuff in /usr/lib/python1.5? If not,
what will you do to ensure partial upgrades work correctly? If so, that may
give us an easy out for transitioning the python2 packages.
> Nearly all Python packages (to be exact: those who install things in
> /usr/lib/python1.5, those who build binary extension modules, and those who
> link with libpython1.5) would have to be modified and rebuilt. Those
> packages that provide both python2-* and python-* versions would have to be
> modified to instead build python-* and python15-* versions; the dependencies
> of those packages would need closer inspection.
There are only a dozen or so packages in unstable/i386 that have versioned
depends on python2 related stuff; anything else should be able to be
handled with provides:.
> What do you think ?
If you can make upgrades work; if you can not break too many
people's testing or unstable systems; and if you can get everything
rewritten/rebuilt relatively quickly, I'd say it's worth doing.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you
do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.''
-- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net)
Reply to: