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

Re: Python3 modules not built for all supported Python versions


Quoting Emilio Pozuelo Monfort (2020-03-30 13:24:01)
> We've just finished the transition to python3.8 as the default python3
> interpreter, which was a bit difficult due to some autopkgtest regressions in
> a few rdeps, and to the fact that many modules only build their extensions
> for the default python version, which means they have a strict dependency on
> the python3 version[1] and they need to be rebuilt and migrated in lockstep
> with python3-defaults.
> I have analyzed this based on current sid amd64 contents and have come up with
> the following packages that don't ship extensions for both py3.7 and 3.8 (which
> are the currently supported versions). Note that pure python packages that don't
> build C extensions are not affected.
> It would be great if this situation can be improved in order to help with future
> python transitions. Building for all the supported python versions can be done
> by build-depending on python3-all-dev and compiling your package (or just the
> python bits) with PYTHON pointing to each version. Depending on your package's
> build system, this could be largely automated using some helper, such as
> pybuild. If you don't know how to add support for your package, feel free to ask.

does this mean that build-depending on python3-dev is wrong in general and
should instead be replaced by build-depending on python3-all-dev?

Could wrong build dependencies or binary packages which have a strict
dependency on a python3 version not easily be detected by lintian?

I'm not an expert in Python module packaging -- it just so happens that some
packages I maintain offer Python bindings. Do you have a diff of a source
package that successfully made the transition so that I know what I would have
to change? For example the package src:ros-geometry2 has a super simple
dh-style rules file, basically just doing:

	dh $@ --buildsystem=cmake --with python3

What would I have to change to successfully fix this problem?


cheers, josch

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: signature

Reply to: