Re: Status report on python2 transition (possible solution)
D-Man <dsh8290@rit.edu> writes:
> Yes. Maybe each extension should just depend on a single version of
> python and need to be rebuilt for each new python release.
It makes things considerably simpler, from my point of view.
Then, of course, we need unique package names for each package.
Something like "python-imaging-python1.5", "python-imaging-python2.0"
and "python-imaging-2.1"? Aagh.
(Picking on python-imaging because it contains binary modules, so it's
version specific anyway.)
> | 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.
True. I feel that we can't keep everyone happy forever, and Python
1.5 has to go away someday; OTOH, I'm running quite up to date
unstable, so maybe I don't have the same perspective as many users. ;)
--
Carey Evans http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/c.evans/
"Quiet, you'll miss the humorous conclusion."
Reply to: