Re: python2.1 et al.
Gregor Hoffleit <gregor@mediasupervision.de> writes:
[...]
> From the discussion, the most pressing problem is how we tackle the
> upgrade of potato python-* packages, especially when they have
> incomplete/incorrect dependencies.
Here's a radical idea: don't. Leave the Python 1.5.2 packages exactly
as they are now, except that a new version of python-base provides
/usr/bin/python via alternatives.
Then there's no upgrade hassles, no worries about maintainers having
to fix their Python-dependent packages in a short time frame, etc.
Nicer upgrade systems can be tested when there's more time to get all
the other packages fixed too.
As long as "apt-get install python2" installs everything for Python
2.x, this shouldn't make things too hard on the end user, especially
if most of the existing packages that use Python get repackaged for
Python 2.1.1 anyway.
[...]
> Do we need python2.0-* as well ?
I don't think so. Realistically, will we ever need more than one
Python 2.x version in stable at any time? Perl seems to cope with
just one version, even though Perl 5.005 and 5.6 have enough changes
to break code for 5.004.
--
Carey Evans http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/c.evans/
"Quiet, you'll miss the humorous conclusion."
Reply to: