Re: Status report on python2 transition (possible solution)
On Sat, Jul 14, 2001 at 04:05:56PM +1200, Carey Evans wrote:
| 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.
Yeah
| Something like "python-imaging-python1.5", "python-imaging-python2.0"
| and "python-imaging-2.1"? Aagh.
Since we have "python1.5" and "python2.1", how about
"python1.5-imaging" and "python2.1-imaging". Then if the maintainer
wants to include a version on the package it could be (I don't know
PIL's version) "python2.1-imaging2.3". I don't think that is too
ugly.
| (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. ;)
I agree with both of those, though I think that at least one "old"
version should be kept. I don't think 1.5.2 needs to disappear quite
yet because it is the most common version (in a lot of diff.
environments). It could probably go in the next (after woody) release
because by then 2.x will have filled it place as the most commonly
used.
-D
Reply to: