Re: python2.3/python2.4/python packages
On 2006-02-10 18:12, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> 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.
Not an anwer at all. I mean someone would like to package his program or tool
and make it dependant on kid0.8 templates and python2.4.
So he sets the dependency: kid (>= 0.8) and python2.4.... currently, kid is
installed in python 2.3 and the dependency just fails. I hate broken
dependencies ;-) as much as any user does
When you need python2.4 (not only 2.3) with cherrypy2.1 (not only 2.0), all
works great.
You set it dependent on python2.4-cherrypy2.1 which depends on python2.4, and
is installed in its structure.
In these cases I don't even need python-* type of packages... because I know
which versions I support in my programs.
I quite like meta-packages, that make dependencies work better. I allways
thought this is a strong point of APT.
>
> > 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.
I am thinking about it... as I was one of the confused users - confused that
python-* is sometimes a metapackage and sometimes a real package. (Not from
the total number of packages related to python.)
And because i was looking at python package called kid... expected python-kid
but that was just 'kid'... searched for 2.4 version but there is none....
And also confused by the fact that python2.3 and python2.4 families are not at
all complete as I expected.
Reply to: