On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 09:30:52PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Marco Bertorello wrote: > > denyhosts-python2.3 > > denyhosts-python2.4 > > denyhosts-common > > the binaries are stored in packages -python2.X but the manpage (common > > to alla packages) is stored in denyhosts-common. > Why would you have a binary in -python2.3 *and* in -python2.4 ? > And why can't you simply provide a single package an you make the choice > to use either python2.3 or python2.4 ? > I don't see the gain of having two versions of the same application just > to work with two different python version... (it's different for Python > modules because the user must be able to use the modules with the Python > version of its choice) denyhosts-python2.3/2.4 do contain a python module. If and when the Great Python Reorganization finally happens, this ought to be a single denyhosts package depending on python (>> 2.3), python (<< 2.5). In the meantime, the current packages have an RC bug, #361085, about the fact that denyhosts-comon *does* include a binary that tries to support both versions of python, but without appropriate dependencies to ensure a consistent python configuration. > If your application works with python2.3 (default python version for the > moment), then you use that and you're done. Once python2.4 is the default, > you update your package to work with python 2.4 and you're done. Since the package installs public modules, it seems to me that putting the modules and the app in a single package is the wrong solution. However, trying to make the application package auto-switch between two different versions of python is also the wrong solution. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature