Re: Specifying Supported Python Versions - Round 2
"Scott Kitterman" <debian@kitterman.com> wrote:
>As I had said I would after the last round, I asked the release team about any
>specific requirements they might have for Python version specification. They
>don't. My summary of the thread is "We want it to be easy". The thread
>starts here for those interested:
>
>http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2010/06/msg00211.html
>
>Based on the previous discussion here and feedback on IRC, here is a revised
>proposal:
>
>For Python(2):
>
>pyversions -r will use (in this order):
>
>1. A new field called X-Python2-Version: This is identical to the current XS-
>P-V, except it doesn't get exported to the source Packages.{gz,bz2}, and it
>does not support lists of versions (e.g. (2.4, 2.5, 2.6) is not supported).
>Acceptable values are a single version (e.g 2.6), greater than or equal to a
>version (e.g. >= 2.5), or strictly less than a version (e.g. << 2.7).
>Versions 3 or greater will raise an error.
>
>2. XS-Python-Version: The same as it is currently, except versions 3 or
>greater will raise an error. This will require at least two packages to have
>to be changed. I'd appreciate it if someone could check if anything other
>than python-apt and pyyaml are affected.
>
>3. debian/pyversions: Same as XS-Python-Version.
>
>4. Implicit "all" supported Python 2 versions (currently 2.5 and 2.6).
>
>For Python3:
>
>1. A new field called X-Python3-Version: It does not support lists of
>versions (e.g. (3.0, 3.1)). Acceptable values are a single version (e.g 3.1),
>greater than or equal to a version (e.g. >= 3.1), or strictly less than a
>version (e.g. << 3.2). Versions 2 or less will raise an error.
>
>2. There is no #2. If your build system uses py3versions -r, then you need
>X-P3-V, if it's not there, an error will be raised. If it doesn't use
>py3versions -r, then it's between the maintainer and their build system. The
>field is not mandatory.
>
>This change will affect Debian Python Policy, pyversions, and py3versions. If
>we get some consensus around this, I will prepare the changes.
>
A point of clarification based on IRC follow-up:
For X-P2/3-V I include use of >= X.Y, << X.Z to specify a range of versions as valid.
Scott K
Reply to: