Re: Policy for "Specifying Supported Versions" for Python3
"Barry Warsaw" <barry@python.org> wrote:
>On Jun 21, 2010, at 06:30 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
>>I think most people install Python modules and extensions as dependencies of
>>applications they care to use. For Python developers that actually care
>>about such things, I think it's better that the just install both manually.
>
>I agree about the former. I'm just posing the question, I'm not sure I have a
>strong opinion about the latter. For developers, I guess 'apt-get build-dep'
>gets close, but it doesn't seem quite right.
>
>>If we maintain a standard that if in Python you import foo, then the Python
>>package name is python-foo and the Python3 package is names python3-foo, I
>>would think this is manageable. I think that adding this metapackage would
>>impose a lot of complexity on packagers and/or python helper maintainers,
>>bloat the Packages.gz file signficantly, and probably provide confusing
>>search results.
>>
>>I'm not sure what the best answer is, but I'm not sure there is one that's
>>even good.
>
>Maybe the answer isn't in adding more package dependencies, but instead in a
>tool that you could wrap around apt. E.g. if I wanted Python package foo
>installed for all installed Python versions, I think it wouldn't be too
>difficult to write a little helper that could map from Python module name to
>python-foo and python3-foo binary package names, doing the apt-get install for
>you.
>
>Does that sound more reasonable?
>
Probably almost trivial with python-apt. Yes. Much better.
Scott K
P. S. No need to CC me, I'm subscribed to the list.
Reply to: