Re: Python 2.6? A Python transition?
Josselin Mouette <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> 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
Okay, that's easy enough. I assume that doesn't break builds for Python
2.5 (or 2.4, to the extent it's still supported)?
> * fixing paths from site-packages to *-packages (since the path
> now depends on the Python version, yay)
I may be confused by this, but so far as I can tell, I don't have to do
anything for this to work for the module I'm looking at. Under what
circumstances would you expect for a package to need to be modified to
deal with this?
> 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.
Oh, okay, so I also can't easily test with Python 2.6 in Debian without
installing the package from experimental.
The package I'm looking at is a package for a client and server
application that also builds Perl, Python, and PHP bindings for its client
library, so the Makefile machinery is more complex than just using
distutils and needs the bits of glue pushed into its build machinery. But
I think I have it sorted out, apart from not being positive it's going to
work with 2.6.
Russ Allbery (email@example.com) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>