On 2010-03-01 2:09 PM, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> tag 572064 + wontfix
> forcemerge 476213 572064
> thanks
>
> On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 01:35:23PM +0100, Jürgen Strobel wrote:
>> I am aware of #476213. This is not a request to fix temporary unstable problems.
>
> Then you should not have filed a new bug out of it as #476213
> got used for telling that I won't do what you just request in this
> new bug.
I wanted a 2.6 variant for completely different reasons than #476213.
Waiting for packages being built in unstable solves #476213 but not my
problem, so I still feel this was valid. I need this for a genuine
python2.6 project.
>
>> I would very much like to have an additional python2.6-uno. After glancing
>> at debian/rules I feel unable to provide patches though.
>
> No. (As said in #476213).
>
> If you want python-uno for 2.6, get the python "maintainer" or the
> people doing work for him to get the transition done to change
> the default. Then a OOo rebuild will pick up 2.6.
>
> I build only for the default python and this is not going to change.
> Especially it will get interesting because pyuno is not a pure python#
> module but has also a OOo part (which is linked against libpython).
>
> Which one of both will you take? Both will conflict anyway due to
> the pythonloader. And the build will also get hackish. ("Normal" build
> of OOo and then pyuno again for 2.6).
>
> René
Obviously I wanted files for both versions, including OOo parts, maybe
installed to python2.6 lib dirs directly. I agree this is not easy and
time consuming as it would involve building relevant OOo components
against both python versions. Maybe I should have asked the python guys
instead, but after looking at debian/rules again I doubt anyone else
wants to understand and reproduce even parts of it.
I was hoping the build system would support this if you only knew the
magic. I'll have to do with local hacks instead.
Any way thanks for the fast answer,
Jürgen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature