[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: dh_python and python policy analysis



On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 13:41 +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> Le mar 8 août 2006 00:18, Pierre Habouzit a écrit :
> current explicitely says that the package is only built for the current 
> python version, and not for any other supported in debian. But I don't 
> like that value for the following reasons:
>  * it says for what the package is built, whereas other values explain
>    for which range of python versions the package is build-able, so
>    semanticaly it's not homogenous ;
>  * it prevents the packager to explain with which python versions the
>    package is compatible, as saying 'current' suggests that the package
>    is now compatible with the current python version, and will always in
>    the future, wich may be wrong when (if that happen) some python 3.0
>    that is not 100% backward compatible should exists ;
>  * it also give an information we already have as a package that is
>    built for the current python version should depend upon python-dev
>    and not python-all-dev ;

It's possible to build Python modules for all versions with only
python-dev, if they are pure Python modules (feedparser is such a
package, its dependency on python-all-dev is extraneous and could be
just python-dev). So simply looking at the dependencies is not enough
information.

>  * current has not a constant meaning, as it depends of the state of the
>    package python-defaults, and not only of the state of the archive
>    when the package was uploaded. This is IMHO the biggest flaw of that
>    field value.

This is exactly the *point* of the field. It means you can just binNMU
packages and support the new version. If we lose this ability we've lost
much of the point of the Python transition.

Packages with private extensions still cannot make use of anything but
"current" to take real advantage of the new policy (things like ">= 2.3"
are a lie because they can still only support one version at a time). If
you get rid of it, they are back to the crappy situation we were at a
year ago.
-- 
Joe Wreschnig <piman@sacredchao.net>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: