Hi Donovan, On Sat, Feb 23, 2002 at 10:38:17AM +1100, Donovan Baarda wrote: > Did you see my analysis and modified "register-python-package" script? I > posted it under a misleading subject by mistake (responded to another thread > that migrated onto it). Sorry, sometimes I have lag in responding :) > Some things like how dependancies should work need to be resolved. The > sample "sperm" package has a dependancy on "python", but this doesn't really > express it right. This means a dependancy on any version of the "default" > python. Perhaps "all" is misleading, it should be "default". > This means "sperm" cannot be installed for python1.5 unless > "python", and hence "python2.1", is also installed. A dependancy on > "python1.5 | python1.6 | python2.0 | python2.1 | python2.2" would work > better, but then it breaks for python2.3, undermining it's claimed > python-central support for "all". With the current policy encouraging and centralising on a "default" Python version, the support for "all Python versions" is leading in the wrong direction. Remember that the other versions (the Policy calls them "legacy" versions, which are currently 1.5 and 2.2) are only there to provide packages depending on specific Python versions other than the default. > This leads to some of my concerns about claiming support for "all" or > ">=X.Y". As one of the people who originaly provided nasty-hack code to > support this, I'm starting to have doubts. For starters, claming support for > as-yet-non-existant versions of Python is more risky than I thought. I would > hesitate to deny a packager the right to make such claims and deal with the > bug-reports when they come in, but I think it should be discoraged. Good point. Its always risky to support future versions (with "risk" meaning bug reports on the module). On the other side, thats exactly what I want with a version independent module: get rid of "oh, the version changed, so re-upload the thing". > Those who want "all" behaviour can specify "1.5 1.6 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3". Those > who want ">=X.Y" behaviour can just specify "X.Y X.Y+1 ..." upto wherever > they feel comfortable with. I agree with you on feeling very uncomfortable to write "Depends: python2.3", thats not the way of a true samurai. But I definitely want the "Depends: python" option on a module package. This does not mean "version independent", but "independent of the default python version". In this case its up to the package maintainer to ensure the module works with a possible changing default python version. With your last script using the dpkg database (which is really nice), this should not be very difficult to achieve. I will see what code I can crank up for this :) Greetings, Bastian
Attachment:
pgpngoKI8X3Eg.pgp
Description: PGP signature