Re: dh_python and python policy analysis
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 23:37:15 +0200, Pierre Habouzit <firstname.lastname@example.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 <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C