Le vendredi 10 février 2006 à 16:46 +0100, Pavel Šimerda a écrit : > > For a module that has few or zero reverse dependencies, there should be > > one single package, named python-foo, containing the module for the > > default python version. Anything else is just cluttering the archive. > > You think it's better to force users to a specific version... I thought MOST > of the packages were in two binary versions (2.3 and 2.4) with one dummy > package dependant on the default. It seems you don't like peple who'd like to > make their own packages do you? I don't like people who like to provide several packages just for the pleasure of providing several packages. > I don't mean it bad... I already switched to setup.py installation instead of > apt so I can use python2.4 now. I'm just trying to make things better for > other users. You should think of comparing the value added by providing several packages and the cost of cluttering the archive and confusing users. Ask yourself whether this is worth the complication. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette /\./\ : :' : josselin.mouette@ens-lyon.org `. `' joss@debian.org `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=