Re: Packaging python-egenix-mx*

[Joel Rosdahl <joel@debian.org>]

Donovan Baarda <abo@minkirri.apana.org.au> writes:

> 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.

That's a suggestion I expected.  :-) Actually, I initially made a
version that builds 1.5 and 2.1 versions of the packages along with
empty dummy packages that depend on their respective 2.1 versions.
When I later thought about not building 1.5 versions, I decided to
test the 2.1.1 packaging option to get rid of the dummy packages (and
to see whether anyone had comments about it).

So it's not much work for me to switch to the 2.1.3-1 scheme again,
and if both Python 2.2 (in some form) will be included in woody I
definitely will use it (the scheme, that is).

        Regards,
        Joel

-- 
Joel Rosdahl <joel@debian.org>   (PGP and GPG keys available)