Re: Summary of python transition problems
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 07:28:23PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Colin Watson writes:
> > 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.
>
> It does help for python applications, which depend on an explicit
> python version. I did not count packages with a 'python2.3 (>= 2.3)'
> dependency.
>
> It does not help for library packages building a python-foo binary
> package. For this case you would have to separate this binary package
> to build from it's own source (but maybe this could be built from the
> python-defaults package as well ...).
Hmm. How many python-foo binary packages are there? (I count 138 in
testing. Ouch.) How feasible would it be to have at least some of the
core ones all built from a hypothetical python-defaults?
This is blue-sky - I'm not involved enough in Python to know whether
it's feasible, unfortunately. I have a feeling that it might cause
different problems.
> But maybe an upload of the current python2.3 packages (without
> changing the default version) to testing would help as well in this
> case.
In the absence of the above, it would certainly be helpful in future if
a version of pythonX.Y that satisfies the shlibs in unstable could be
ensured to be safely in testing before changing the default version. I
realize that was difficult this time round because glibc and gcc-3.3 got
in the way.
Cheers,
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
Reply to: