Re: Summary of python transition problems
On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 11:40:50AM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> On Sun, 2003-10-05 at 02:55, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > Donovan Baarda writes:
> > > 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?
For what it's worth, I think a python-defaults source package or some
such would help: at the moment there are several packages needlessly
stalled on python2.3, even though their dependencies are simply
'python2.3 (>= 2.3)' or similar. If the python binary package were built
from a separate source package then we could decouple transitions from
the task of keeping the versioned packages up to date.
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
Reply to: