Re: python-central vs python-support

[Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de>]

Raphael Hertzog writes:
> On Tue, 06 Jun 2006, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > > > The 'Provides: python2.3-foo, python2.4-foo' is missing for all
> > > > packages with private modules and scripts (without shared modules).
> > > > For that case we do need XB-Python-Version.  If we do want to drop the
> > > > Provides for packages where they are not needed, we need it for shared
> > > > modules as well.
> > > 
> > > What for? Modules are automatically available to all python versions
> > > (except those which do not support all versions, but then we can't do
> > > better...).
> > 
> > please read again. I'm not talking about shared modules.
> 
> I've read "If we do want to drop the Provides for packages where they are
> not needed, we need it for shared modules as well."
> 
> It's that part that I'm questioning.

How do you tell about packages which need a rebuild (by looking at the
package database)?

> > > > > Don't you think this new field and Provides are redondant, and that you
> > > > > could decide which rebuilds are necessary from it ?
> > > > 
> > > > no, not for packages with private extensions.
> > 
> > ... or private modules.
> > 
> > > Does this kind of package exist? (ie do you have an example?)
> > 
> > i.e. zope2.x
> > 
> > we have to keep that information for packages with private modules
> > using a non-standard version of python as well.
> 
> What's the problem with private modules ?
> 
> AFAIK the only "issue" is handling of bytecompilation and this problem is
> already under control by the packages which really benefit from
> bytecompilation. 
> 
> Am I wrong? If yes, what do we want to improve?

How do you see, that a package with private data using the default
python version needs a rebuild?

  Matthias