Re: (2nd try) Final draft of Python Policy (hopefully ;-)
On Sun, Oct 28, 2001 at 02:57:15PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de> writes:
>
> > > 2.1.1 Support Only The Default Version
[...]
> > > + a new change to the major version of python, will make all
> > > packages depending on the default version being uninstalled, right?
> > > If so, I don't think it is the Right Thing.
> >
> > s/major//. Correct. Assume we release woody with python (2.1), and we
>
> But I don't want all my python packages to be uninstalled because
> python changed. This is unacceptable.
So choose one of the other alteratives available in the policy :-)
The beauty is there are three different ways of making packages, each with
different benefits and drawbacks.
The "support only the default version" option is IMHO a bad option for most
packages, but some people might like it for their packages. It's biggest
drawback is packages using it _must_ be upgraded when Python upgrades. It's
other drawback is it doesn't automaticly leave you with pythonX.Y-<foo>
packages to support older versions of Python. Instead these have to be made
_after_ python-<foo> has been fixed to support the new version of Python.
However, people might like using it when they want only one python-<foo>
package that will definitely break for a different version of Python. For
people who have a package that meets this criteria, it is better to have the
old packages uninstalled when python changes than to have everything that
uses them mysteriosly stop working.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ABO: finger abo@minkirri.apana.org.au for more info, including pgp key
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: