Re: Packaging python-egenix-mx*
G'day,
On Sun, Oct 28, 2001 at 10:34:05PM +0100, Joel Rosdahl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have now finished Debianizing eGenix mx BASE (based on patch done by
> Federico Di Gregorio, see bug#111156):
>
> http://www.lemburg.com/files/python/eGenix-mx-Extensions.html
>
> The upstream maintainer of "the mx packages" (mxdatetime, mxstack,
> mxtools, ...) now distributes everything in one source package, so I
> have used egenix-mx-base as source package name. It currently builds
> the following binary packages compiled for Python 2.1:
>
> python-egenix-mxbeebase
> python-egenix-mxdatetime (new version of python-mxdatetime)
> python-egenix-mxproxy
> python-egenix-mxqueue
> python-egenix-mxstack (new version of python-mxstack)
> python-egenix-mxtexttools (new version of python-mxtexttools)
> python-egenix-mxtools (new version of python-mxtools)
>
> and also
>
> python-egenix-mx-base-dev
[...]
> 3. As the policy mandates, I have made the packages depend on
>
> python (>= 2.1), python (<< 2.2)
[...]
> 4. Any other comments?
[...]
My only suggestion is, if you are at all in doubt about supporting multiple
versions of python, don't use the 2.1.1 "support only the default" packaging
option, instead use the 2.1.3-1. "multiple versioned packages" option.
Note that even if you choose the "multiple versioned packages" option, you
are not required to support all versions, only the default. This allows you
to easily add multiple version support later on if you wish. It actualy
gives you multiple version support for free as you produce new packages,
as each new version doesn't break your old packages.
It might seem like more work initially, but I'm sure in the long run it
will work out easier.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ABO: finger abo@minkirri.apana.org.au for more info, including pgp key
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: