Re: Summary of python transition problems
On Sun, 2003-10-05 at 02:55, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Donovan Baarda writes:
> > On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 02:28:52PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > > Hi, Colin Watson wrote:
[...]
> > The second problem is is when we get python (2.4), a new python2.3
> > package will need to be released just to fix the dependencies. The
> > Python Policy was designed so that no pythonX.Y(-foo) packages would
> > need to be updated when python (X.Y+1) is released.
>
> not true. the 2.3 upload is needed for not building the unversioned
> python packages.
Hmm, I forgot about that. Is this a hassle? Would it be possible, and
would it help, to have "python" built from it's own empty source
package?
The the pythonX.Y[-foo] binary packages built after such an upgrade
should be identical to the previous version... it seems a shame to
generate new packages that have to propagate to mirrors, be downloaded
and installed etc, that are identical to the previous version.
What happens if you "just don't do it", and don't upload new source for
the old package? Will the new python (X.Y+1) generated from the new
source happily replace the old one in the archives, leaving the old
pythonX.Y packages un-touched?
> > Having the python policy more visible would probably do more to answer
> > FAQ's than having busted dependencies on packages :-)
>
> /usr/share/doc/python should be prominent enough. I will not formally
> submit the python policy before the sarge release, we'll have plenty
> of time after the sarge release ...
OK.
--
Donovan Baarda <abo@minkirri.apana.org.au>
http://minkirri.apana.org.au/~abo/
Reply to: