On Thu, 2006-06-15 at 09:15 +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > Le jeu 15 juin 2006 00:00, Peter Samuelson a écrit : > > unblock 373387 by 373628 > > thanks > > > > (This block was a false positive. While we use cdbs a little, we > > don't actually use it for anything python-related.) > > > > First, it's not clear to me what advantages anyone would get from > > "fixing" the subversion packaging to comply with current python > > policy. I do not see what is broken about our current package. It > > doesn't hard-code python 2.3 anywhere, so it's binNMUable. (Well, > > other than the "Provides: python2.3-subversion", which can probably > > go away now. It's left over from renaming the package from that.) One advantage of the new policy is that it automatically records the version of Python it was compiled against as XB-Python-Version, so whether or not the package needs a binNMU is more obvious (a dependency on a specific Python version doesn't tell you whether it's an accident of compiling against that version, or if it really needs that version). > > It's even less clear what point there is in supporting multiple > > simultaneous python versions, except to avoid the need for a binNMU > > once every 3 years. python-subversion has very few users. Building > > the module code twice, and making the package hard to backport to > > stable, is enough of a pain to make it reasonable to ask what benefit > > these users will get in return. Supporting just one version, the current one, is fine. However, you do need to migrate the package to use pycentral, since dh_python alone will no longer manage the byte (re)compilation of the .py modules. > please follow-up on debian-python@ Following up both places, I don't see a good reason to move the discussion. -- Joe Wreschnig <piman@sacredchao.net>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part