Re: Upload of new Python extension packages
On Fri, 2005-07-01 at 04:11, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 30 juin 2005 à 18:20 -0700, Donovan Baarda a écrit :
> > 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 is complete overkill. Which problems would it actually solve?
>
> For most python packages, a single source and binary should be enough.
> No more.
The one problem it solves, that I think is worth solving, is supporting
more than one version of python.
Though I guess that depends on whether the package maintainer wants to
support more than one version of Python. If you do, I'm guessing this is
the cleanest way for a package with extension modules.
--
Donovan Baarda <abo@minkirri.apana.org.au>
Reply to: