Re: Python packages in incoming
Jérôme Marant writes:
> Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de> writes:
>
> > 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.
>
> What I dislike is that I have the impression that instead of discussing
> these issues with everyone on the list, you silently prepared the packages
> with Gregor. You came up with your version of packages as if nothing
> happened. Talking to Neil would have avoided that he works on this
> for nothing. I'm disappointed.
<off topic>
Reading
http://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2001/debian-python-200109/msg00003.html
I don't see any response/reaction from Neil on Gregor's last
proposal. So did he "silently ignore" Gregor's packages? I didn't
"silently prepared the packages". I submitted patches to Gregor based
on his packages. What is wrong with this approach? These derived
packages were available. The same way you argument on Neil's "work for
nothing", you could do this for Gregor's ideas and work not
incorporated in Neil's packages.
</off topic>
We are approaching the freeze. I think we all want to have a recent
version of python in woody, but at this point it's probably not enough
time to safely replace the 1.5 version with 2.1, so we have to keep
it, and keep it in a way, that existing 1.5 packages don't need to be
rebuilt. No question that we could have done better, if we started in
July with the transition...
There is no work lost. We'll need this work for a clean transition
between python versions. But let's start with it after woody is
released and hope for better responsiveness and communication of
people involved in the packaging.
Matthias
Reply to: