Re: Python packages in incoming

[Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de>]

Jérôme Marant writes:
>   What about proposal and policy from Neil and his efforts?

- the proposed packaging scheme doesn't allow smooth upgrades between
  one python version and a next version. compare python-1.5 to libc5
  and python-2.1 to libc6. there was a clear upgrade procedure to do
  the transition. The proposed packaging scheme doesn't allow such an
  upgrade. From my point of view, this is a showstopper.

- Module paths and installation of arch independant packages should
  be integrated in the current packages.
  Neil's policy proposal addresses this in 1.2 and 2.2.

  This should be extended as outlined in
  http://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2001/debian-python-200110/msg00017.html

Minor things:

- Package names should use pythonX.Y, not python-X.Y. Consistent with
  the name of the binary, the name of the library path and with the
  python2 packages.


We should decide, which python versions should go into woody. My
proposal would be 1.5.2 and one of the 2.x versions. Probably the
safest decision wold be 2.1 at this point. That would mean the removal
of all python2 packages from unstable and testing, when 2.1 is
available in testing.