Re: policy: A single package for all versions
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 12:05:19AM +0000, Floris Bruynooghe wrote:
> Hello
>
> I was wondering why there is still no way to produce these single
> packages for all versions (see policy 2.2.3 (2.)). Is there anything
> holding back the scripts in pythonX.Y to support this?
It got kinda complicated, and no one has done anything.
> Currently all packages have to be reuploaded before a new pythonX.Y
> package can progress. This seems a bit a lot of needles time and
This should not be the case. If the source files that generate
pythonX.Y<-foo> binary packages are already uploaded, the only
packages that need to be uploaded for a new python release to progress
is the source packages that generate the new python<-foo> wrapper
package.
Unfortunately, often it is the same source package used to generate
the both the pythonX.Y<-foo> binary packages and the python<-foo>
wrapper. This means the new source package triggers new releases of
all the packages.
On the list there has been discussion about encoraging using a
seperate source package to generate the python<-foo> wrapper packages,
but there is no mention of this in the policy yet.
> effort to me and I gather this could partially be solved by this
> single package for all versions thing.
This can only help for pure-python packages. I'm not sure what
pecentage of packages fall into this catagory.
Packages with extension modules will need to be built against the new
Python version. However, even this is overly complicated right now.
> Any status on this?
There has been discussion, but AFAIK, no changes have been made to
anything since the original policy was formulated.
There are some problems with the current policy (see an archive of
this list). The biggest problem is it fails to clearly address what
source packages should be used to generate what binary packages
(single source file, multiple binaries etc). It should also more
clearly identify what types of packages there are (pure python,
extension modules, application programs, etc) and the best packaging
options for each.
The "support all python" referred to in 2.2.3 really only applies to
pure-python packages. It is definitely not supported yet in the form
described in the policy.
An alternative discussed on the list is to put the pure-python modules
in /usr/lib/site-python instead of /usr/lib/pythonX.Y. This seems to
be the least effort/damage solution. There are some problems (mainly
.pyc's get recompiled to different versions of python every time root
uses them with a different version), but the side-effects are minimal.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Donovan Baarda http://minkirri.apana.org.au/~abo/
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: