On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 08:32 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Mon, 05 Jun 2006, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > On Sun, 04 Jun 2006, Joe Wreschnig wrote: > > > policy is. So here's *my* attempt at summarizing the BoF, based on your > > > first mail and responses, and independent of the tools used: > > > > > > 1) Public modules and extensions should support all available Python > > > versions, using a single binary package. > > > > > > 2) A new control field, XC-Python-Version will be used to determine what > > > versions of Python a module supports. > > > > > > 3) The tight upper bound on module dependencies will be removed, > > > provided the module actually works on future versions of Python. The > > > upper bound on extension dependencies will not, because then they > > > wouldn't work. > > > > > > 4) python2.x-* virtual packages are to be used only when necessary, but > > > packages can provide them regardless. > > > > > > 5) Private modules and applications should use some way to support more > > > than one Python version, if possible. > > > > > > Is this accurate? 1), 3), and 4) contridict your original email, but > > > match what you told me this time. > > > > Yes, this is a good summary IMO, however I don't remember if we discussed > > point 5. > > Joe, could you integrate all this in the real document of the python policy? > Any other volunteer for that task? I will try to write something up Monday; I need to set aside some time to watch the BoF properly, and want to reread the pycentral/support code before I try to formalize the policy. If someone else wants to preempt me feel free. It also depends a little on how the implementation details play out, I guess. I can write the policy strictly independently of the tools, but the current policy has a lot of example code, and I'd like to keep that too. -- Joe Wreschnig <piman@sacredchao.net>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part