Re: python2.1 et al.
On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 05:24:04PM +0200, Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
>
>
> My proposal for woody: Python 1.5.2 is renamed to python1.5-*. Python
> 2.1.1 will be shipped as python2.1-*. Do we need python2.0-* as well ?
I do not think so
>
> Then, we still have to agree on a strategy how to set up the
> dependencies, in order to make the upgrade work in an intuitive way.
>
> For maintainers of Python extension modules, this would mean that they
> would have to build one package for each included Python version, e.g.
> python1.5-mysqldb, python2.0-mysqldb and python2.1-mysqldb.
>
Is there a reason for python1.5 existance _other_ then supporting
older application? If not, I'd propose to have packages named
python1.5-foo for python1.5, and python-foo for current
version of python (i.e. 2.1), and for packages that do not care about
python version.
(Personally, I'd HATE to 1) rename my package whose upstream
name is python-utmp, 2) maintain two versions of it.
Ok, I'll probalby have to... <sigh>)
> There would be no python-* packages in woody!!!
Why (even considering your proposal above)? If there is a package called
python-foo, which is pure python and works with both 1.5 and 2.1, should
there be 2 packages made of it? (different only in names)
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
| Radovan Garabik http://melkor.dnp.fmph.uniba.sk/~garabik/ |
| __..--^^^--..__ garabik @ melkor.dnp.fmph.uniba.sk |
-----------------------------------------------------------
Antivirus alert: file .signature infected by signature virus.
Hi! I'm a signature virus! Copy me into your signature file to help me spread!
Reply to: