Re: Status report on python2 transition (possible solution)
On Sat, Jul 14, 2001 at 01:07:21PM +1200, Carey Evans wrote:
| D-Man <dsh8290@rit.edu> writes:
| > Sure, but also consider older packages. For example, we are now
| > moving to 2.0 (or 2.1) for the "default" python. We still want to
| > provide 1.5.2 versions of all the other packages, so they should (now)
| > specify that they don't work with >= 2.0 because we know that now.
|
| However, that can lead to packages breaking when a new version of
| Python is installed, without pulling in the newer extension modules
| and packages that use the new scope rules properly, and have variables
| named "yield" and "div" renamed to something else, etc.
Yes. Maybe each extension should just depend on a single version of
python and need to be rebuilt for each new python release.
| dpkg and apt provide very good dependency checking, so we should try
| to use it.
Definitely.
| Anyway, *do* we actually need all the extension modules for Python
| 1.5.2? For Debian itself, there's Zope and Mailman, but they don't
| depend on any other Python packages. reportbug uses python-newt, but
| it should be changed once python-2.1 is available, so that Python
| 1.5.2 isn't installed by default on new Debian 3.0 installations.
|
| Are there any other reasons to provide all the modules for Python
| 1.5.2 (now more than two years old) in Debian 3.0?
Who knows what people might be using that isn't packaged for Debian.
| > Well, I have no fancy title (like "Debian Maintainer") so I really
| > have no authority on the matter. The idea just came to me and it
| > seemed pretty good so I thought I'd share it :-). You can do what you
| > like with the idea.
|
| I probably shouldn't be using my @debian.org address for this
Oh, I hadn't even paid any attention to that ;-).
| discussion anyway; I've done one package upload in the last six
| months, which hardly makes me an active Debian maintainer or any kind
| of authority.
;-).
| I'm not really talking just to you, but generally; by all means keep
| coming up with ideas to improve the Debian Python packages, but please
| don't keep Python 2.1 out of Debian 3.0!
I agree!
-D
Reply to: