Le mar 8 août 2006 21:33, Joe Wreschnig a écrit : > 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. correct, but that holds only for pure python modules, that are arch:all, and thus very rarely need to be tracked. What is important is to be able to list binNMUs to schedule, for extensions. > > * 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. that's because you are taking XS-P-V as a declaration of what is beeing built. It's not, it's a list of python version the source package is theorically compatible with. Then the maintainer choose the python for which it's built: current only if there is private modules involved, the python versions extensions have been built for, or any of them for most of the pure python extensions. XS-P-V (and debian/pyversions) does not explain that, it's the role of XB-P-V for pycentral, or the .version files for pysupport, and it's trivial to guess from the generated depends upon python: if your package depends upon python (<< 2.6), python (>= 2.4) then it has been built for python2.4 and python2.5. When you track transitions, that's all the information you need to know. but current as a XS-P-V is IMHO not correct, and that has been explained in my mail, and in Manoj doc with very good arguments. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O madcoder@debian.org OOO http://www.madism.org
Attachment:
pgpq8GfwxzLKa.pgp
Description: PGP signature