Re: Upload of new Python extension packages

[Donovan Baarda <abo@minkirri.apana.org.au>]

On Thu, 2005-06-30 at 17:10, Torsten Marek wrote:
[...]
> ElementTidy contains a C extension module.

I don't know what the current upstream favored approach with extension
modules is.

I suggest (a bit out of the blue, in no way yet endorsed by anyone) have
two source packages;

pythonX.Y-foo (where X.Y is really "X.Y", not "2.3") that generates the
multiple binary packages python2.2-foo, python2.3-foo, python2.4-foo,
etc. It should build depend on each corresponding python2.2-dev,
python2.3-dev, python2.4-dev etc.

python-foo, which generates the single dummy binary package python-foo
with the appropriate dependencies to tie it to the current default
python.

This way, when python goes from 2.3 to 2.4, you only need to update the
python-foo source package, and the pythonX.Y-foo source package and all
it's binaries doesn't need to be updated.

Note that this is kind of what Python itself does; it has a
python-defaults source package that builds the python package, and the
python2.3 source package that builds the python2.3 binaries. 

I have a feeling that the current python maintainers are pushing towards
only supporting a single version of Python, so they will hate this
suggestion. However, I think supporting multiple versions is very
desirable, and think this is probably the best way to handle it for
extension modules.

-- 
Donovan Baarda <abo@minkirri.apana.org.au>