Re: I'm trying experimental packages for 2.1
On Fri, 21 Sep 2001, Zooko wrote:
> I read the entire huge thread regarding Python 2.1, without really
> understanding the details. Then I looked at:
> 06-Sep-2001 14:08
> 17-Jun-2001 14:24
> 01-Aug-2001 14:44
python1.5 and python2.1 from ~flight, with python2 from
testing/unstable, works for me.
> Okay, so assuming that the technique of comparing date stamps leads me
> infallibly to the best version, I install the ones from `~nas/woody'...
Ya, well, when you are dealing with experimental packages...
newest !always= best, just different.
What it boils down to is that you can have _a_ Python in Debian (as it
is with stable), a "python" package and some other Pythons that
provide python (what you get with testing/unstable and ~nas), or
Pythons that provide a virtual python (the packages in
The first case doesn't seem to be an option anymore; there are too
many incompatible changes coming to Python. It is unlikely that all
the third party code will get upgraded to any specific version of
Python (much less to whatever Python is in Debian), and it is likely
developers will want multiple versions of Python installed so they can
test code against them.
The second case should be workable and is attractive because of the
simplicity for the user who just wants Python, the trade off is
complexity in the packaging. Rotating the various versions of Python
through "python" is harder than just stating explicitly which Python
you are dealing with, exacerbated by packages that (e.g.) depend on
python >1.5 when they really depend on python =1.5, etc.
The third case can be confusing to someone who just wants Python
and doesn't want to worry about which version they have.
A fourth option is to merge the second and third cases ("python" just
depends on a specific python), possibly getting both the best and
worst of each.
Whatever gets done, the upgrade from Potato to Woody will not be
pretty; badly formed dependencies are bad, no matter what packaging
scheme is used.