[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Debian Python Policy [draft]

On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 07:33:26PM -0700, Neil Schemenauer wrote:

I just want to ask a couple of questions to make sure that I understand
this in detail.  Suppose python2.1 is installed as python and you
also have python1.5 installed.  You have 
script poo which is invoked via #!/usr/bin/python and 
script bah which is invoked via #!/usr/bin/python1.5

> 1.2. Module Path
> ----------------
>      Python searches a number of directories for modules.  The module
>      search path for Debian has been ordered to include these locations at
>      the beginning of the path in the following order:
>           /usr/local/lib/site-python
>           /usr/local/lib/python<X>.<Y>/site-packages
>           /usr/lib/python<X>.<Y>/site-packages

The debian search path for poo is (possibly in some other order, per
later messages):


and the debian search path for bah is:



(that is, even in the 'python' package, versioned paths are used.)

> 4.1. Building Embedded Programs
> -------------------------------
>      Programs which embed a Python interpreter must declare a
>      `Build-Depends' on `python-dev'.

Versioning?  If a package requires the dev for python1.5, will we
be providing a python1.5-dev?  

Finally, what about package naming.  Suppose I were maintaining
python-popyda (which I happen to be).  Suppose python (2.1) is released
and it turns out that python-popyda is incompatible with it (I am not
saying it is, I just want a concrete hypothetical).  Should
python-popyda be renamed to python1.5-popyda as soon as possible?
Or should it remain as python-popy with a conflicts that prevents
it from being used with python (2.1)?

Suppose a later version comes out which is 2.1 available, but for
some transition period, I want to provide both a 1.5 and a 2.1 
compatible version.  Should package names be python1.5-popyda and


Again, I have some reservations about breakage on a mass scale
when a new major of python comes out with this scheme, but I guess
paranoid maintainers  can take care of that by routinely making an 
equality depends in our packages.

Jim Penny

Reply to: