[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: python2.3/python2.4/python packages



On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 10:57:50PM +0100, Pavel Šimerda wrote:

| So it means.... debian's default version of python is 2.3 so everybody will 
| use python 2.3 if he wants things working?

That depends ... if you need some 3rd party package/module that debian
built only for 2.3 then yes, but if all the package/modules that you
need have python2.4 builds in debian then you can use 2.4.

| At first look I thought python packages in debian are called 
| python2.3-packagename and python2.4-packagename. And that there's a 
| metapackage python-packagename that requires the 2.3 version installed.
| 
| Now I see this is not so with all packages.... and it is hard to see which 
| packages are present in python2.3 and missing in python2.4. 

See the Python Policy for the various circumstances for each
arrangement.

| would it be so difficult to rename the packages according to this scheme?

For some it isn't, for some it is.

[...]
| Then there's also package python-wxgtk2.6:
| * as it's actually python2.3 version, I would rename it python2.3-wxgtk2.6
| * metapackage python-wxgtk2.6 depending on python2.3-wxgtk2.6
| * what about python-wxgtk (?)
| (* again, we would be prepared for python2.4-wxgtk2.6)

I haven't built wx, but I can imagine that it would not be trivial.
The maintainer chose to only build one variation, and so it is only
for the default version (python 2.3) and doesn't specify that version
in the package name.  If you were to simultaneously build a python 2.4
version, then that naming would be appropriate.

At this point we really just need to move the default to 2.4.  2.4 has
been available for a rather long time now.

-D

PS  I am aware of several factors (including C++ and other
    transitions) that resulted in not starting a python transition
    sooner.  Regardless, 2.4 isn't "new" anymore and ought to be the
    default.  I look forward to seeing this happen :-).

-- 
>Linux is not user-friendly.
It -is- user-friendly.  It is not ignorant-friendly and idiot-friendly.
(Seen somewhere on the net.)
 
www: http://dman13.dyndns.org/~dman/            jabber: dman@dman13.dyndns.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: