On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 11:15:24PM -0500, Stefan Seefeld wrote: > Steve M. Robbins wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Thanks to Steve, Bernd, and Josselin for ideas. > > > > > > On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 09:17:24PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > >> Decorate only the shared library names with the python versions, and retain > >> the current names for the .a files and .so symlinks - with two separate -dev > >> packages that conflict with one another? > >> > >> That still prevents anyone from packaging an extension that builds for both > >> python2.4 and python2.5 at once using Boost.Python, but I think it solves > >> all the other drawbacks of the other solutions you suggested. > > > > Indeed. Do you think this is a serious restriction? Given that > > Debian likes to package extensions for all python versions, I tend to > > think it will become a problem. > > extensions for different python installations don't conflict because > they end up in separate directories. The proposal above is that we provide a boost-python-2.4-dev and a boost-python-2.5-dev package that conflict with one another (because they would contain files of the same name). This prevents a source package from depending on both for a build, and therefore a source package for a Python extension cannot produce an extension for each Python version. -Steve
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature