On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 10:17:13AM +0200, Domenico Andreoli wrote: > On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 09:25:20AM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 01:01:39AM +0200, Domenico Andreoli wrote: > > > Second issue is about the python version used to build Boost.Python, > > > which I chose to be 2.5, trying to anticipate transition of default > > > python to 2.5. This transition is planned but not yet started, so I > > > was pretty optimist and too ahead respect the times. > > > > > > This does not help the integration of Boost based Python extensions > > > with other python packages but the only reported problem is with tagpy > > > (RC bug #426871) and its rdepend sonata. IMHO, these could go with > > > Python 2.5 and be happy with current Boost.Python. Again, I do not > > > think Boost should stay in unstable because of this. > > > > Why don't you build it for every python in Debian as you should ? I > > mean the python policy wants you to support at least default python (2.4 > > atm) and if possible every python out there. Is that _this_ difficult to > > build 2.4 _and_ 2.5 extensions ? > > i should encode the python version in the soname, changing it in a > debian-specific way. I absolutely don't get it. Are you sure it is a python _extension_ ? Extensions live in a versionned directory and are co-installable. It looks like this is rather some kind of shared library that helps generating python bindings for boost C++ "things". In which case the question is: does your library compiled against python2.5 supports generating python2.4 modules or not ? if the answer is no, then you're wrong, you should _always_ build against the default python in debian, else the life of people using boost-generated extensions will be a nightmare (as they won't be able to create extensions for the default python themselves). -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O madcoder@debian.org OOO http://www.madism.org
Attachment:
pgpmOawgtwajX.pgp
Description: PGP signature