[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: dh_python and python policy analysis

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 23:37:15 +0200, Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@debian.org> said: 

> Le dim 13 août 2006 22:17, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
>>       As to the BOF thing, I'll bite: Why one earth did the bof
>> come  up with design decisiosn that require  every single goldarned
>> python  module package to be reuploaded every time a new version of
>> python is added or removed?

> actually,it's not truly needed, it's needed iff a package do needs
> the new provides or not.

> and those reuploads are kind of binNMUs, the real problem here is
> that tehre is no arch:all binNMU and maybe that's here the problem
> that need fixing.

        They are sourceful NMU's: since the  packaged source comprises
 of the .dsc, and that includes the full provides line, as well as the
 information in the source Packages file, etc, also needs to changes.

        The draft does not require any more uploads in the default
 case than absolutely required.  I think the corner case that
 something that was feasible in the old version but not in th new one
 is a low probability event, really, so making that case a trifle
 inconvenient to ease the routine transitions of adding/removing
 python versions is a good tradeoff.

Novinson's Revolutionary Discovery: When comes the revolution, things
will be different -- not better, just different.
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: