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

Re: Python 2.6? A Python transition?

Le mardi 25 août 2009 à 10:10 -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit : 
> I have a few packages that build either Python modules or that embed
> Python.  I see that for the one that builds Python modules (remctl),
> Ubuntu has patched it for a Python 2.6 transition using new makefile
> machinery that I don't entirely understand but which seems reasonably
> straightforward.  However, I don't know if Debian is doing the same thing
> and if just applying that patch would be useful.  For the package that
> embeds Python (gnubg), I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be doing.

There are two problems with adding Python 2.6 to the supported versions.

First, the installation path changed from site-packages to
dist-packages. This means that most Python packages will need two
      * passing --install-layout=deb to setup.py 
      * fixing paths from site-packages to *-packages (since the path
        now depends on the Python version, yay)
This transition should have happened much earlier and was managed very
badly, but well, now it is here and we have to deal with it. I’m in the
process of evaluating the number of affected packages; it’s probably
huge, but can be reduced using the cdbs hack from Ubuntu.

Second, the maintainer stated on IRC he doesn’t want to upload it to
unstable until the packaging helpers are rewritten *again*, with a
proposal that has some advantages but that clearly lose when compared to
the amount of work it implies. Given that so far only Piotr has
volunteered to work on it (the maintainer won’t do it himself), that
leaves us with no reasonable chance to have python2.6 in the squeeze
timeframe unless he is convinced to delay this rewrite.

(Of course, this was not a requirement for uploading it in Ubuntu.)

> Is there a best practice guide somewhere, and if we are doing a
> transition, a guide for those of us who only have ancillary involvement in
> Python packaging telling us what to do?

To put it simply: 
      * Most packages using cdbs should be safe. 
      * Some packages using dh (most of those building only one binary
        package) should be safe. 
      * All the rest needs updating, at least for the new setup.py

 .''`.      Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `'   “I recommend you to learn English in hope that you in
  `-     future understand things”  -- Jörg Schilling

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=

Reply to: