On Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 04:00:01PM -0500, David Coe wrote:
> This sounds like a task package to me, too, but maybe I misunderstand
> what you said; would it include anything besides the dependencies?
>
> Also note that we still have (well, recently had, at least) some packages
> which depend on 'python':
>
> Package: bg5ps
> Package: pythondoc
> Package: sketch
>
> If what you suggest is just a task package, I'll add it to the
> forthcoming task-python-* collection; I agree it's a nice idea to get
> all the official python pieces via one package.
Ok, maybe we better go with task-python, although I still like the idea of a
real python package--IMHO it's a little bit more intuitive than task-python,
and if the name is still free, why shouldn't we use it.
The packages depending on "python" would be no big very problem. In the
worst case, they would have to be changed to depend on python-base if they
don't need the additional bells in whistles installed by python, and this is
a good solution anyway.
Finally, and perhaps most important, a real "python" package would make
versioned dependencies possible: Something like "python (>=1.5.2)" currently
simple doesn't work, and you have to simulate it with e.g. "python-base
(>=1.5.2), python-gdbm (>=1.5.2)".
Please do the task-python* packages anyway!
Gregor
Attachment:
pgpN23KzmaIUS.pgp
Description: PGP signature