Re: Hunting useless binary packages

[Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de>]

Josselin Mouette writes:
> I've been arguing about this issue on a case by case basis, but having a
> look at the archive makes me think we need more radical action. For a
> great bunch of python packages, there is one source providing
> python2.2-foo, python2.3-foo and even python2.4-foo. Even for packages
> with a very few (or even zero) reverse dependencies.
> 
> I firmly believe we should get rid of these extra binary packages. 
>      1. They are cluttering the archive. I don't need to recall how apt
>         and dpkg can be slow.
>      2. They make python transitions more complicated. While a rebuild
>         is enough when there is only one python-foo providing the
>         package, you need to change the set of generated packages and go
>         through NEW.
>      3. In most cases, they are useless. The python policy allows such
>         packages for cases where a specific python version is required
>         by a reverse dependencies. However, it should have been the
>         exception and not the rule.
> 
> If people on this list agree, I'd like to submit a mass bug filing to
> -devel.

No, please don't. We'll take care of them, when we change the python
default version.

  Matthias