Re: Debian concordance
On 6/16/05, Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
> Python is basic for Ubuntu. Given the long freeze of sarge, Debian had
> to support 2.1 (jython), 2.2 (for zope 2.6) and 2.3 for sarge. I'm
> happy we did have a possibility to ship 2.4.1 with sarge. Maybe not
> with the best packaging, but it's included in the release. We will
> have a better packaging for etch/breezy.
No criticism intended of Ubuntu's work on python packaging, which is
awesome. I just meant to point out that it is pretty much inevitable
that python packages need to be compiled separately for sarge and
hoary if they are to be used with the default runtime.
> Please stop spreading fud about C++ and perl ABI compatibility. There
> is none! Both sarge and hoary did ship with ABI compatible Perl and
> C++ ABIs. Basic ABI/API updates are done at the start of a new
> release cycle, there is no difference how that is done in Debian and
> Ubuntu. There is no point comparing the state of development and
> unstable versions.
I'm sorry, I really don't mean to be spreading FUD. I meant those as
criteria for a lowest-common-denominator build environment, not as
statements about what is or isn't compatible between sarge and hoary.
There is of course a great deal more involved in practical ABI
compatibility than compiler / standard library divergences; addressing
the libc6 shlibver issue may resolve the Perl XSUB problems (I haven't
tried it yet), but I haven't even checked whether there are other
last-minute divergences in things like libxml2, glib, libnspr4,
libssl, etc.
In general, I think it's normal for it to take some work to set up a
build environment for binary packages that are supposed to install and
function on multiple distros, no matter how closely related the
distros are. It would be a really wonderful thing if Debian and
Ubuntu (and any other Debian derivatives willing to pitch in) could do
that work instead of sticking ISVs (commercial or otherwise) with it.
Cheers,
- Michael
Reply to: