[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Report on the situation of python2.5 in Debian



Le vendredi 05 octobre 2007 à 20:42 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz a écrit :
> You have missed Zope.
> It is not possible to run Zope 2.X with Python 2.5 yet, same for Zope 3.
> The problems in there are nothing a maintainer could fix, except
> somebody is willing to pay several days (weeks!?) of work.
> Changing the default python version also means to go trough all Zope
> packages and replace /usr/bin/python by /usr/bin/python2.4.

My guess is that must have already been done, because all zope packages
(except those I have listed) already depend on python2.4.

> Does the list include those packages which are not conform to the new
> Python policy? There're still several of them out there. A zero-day NMU
> policy would be good to have here, too.
> http://bugs.debian.org/from:madcoder-python-transition@debian.org;pend-exc=done;exclude=fixed

AFAICT the remaining packages shouldn't prevent python2.5 to migrate to
testing. Still, these bugs also deserve a 0-day NMU policy indeed.

> >         mod-wsgi
> 
> It's not possible to use more than one python version with mod-wsgi,
> therefore it will only work and be build against the default python
> version. A binNMU after changing the version should work well.

I think it should be possible, by building several versions and using a
rtupdate hook to change a symbolic link pointing to one of them. Still,
that makes the package much harder to change than those using distutils,
for which there is no excuse.

A 0-day NMU policy is indeed a bit too much for such packages; it would
be nice to have them fixed, but it should be done in agreement with the
maintainer.

-- 
 .''`.           Josselin Mouette        /\./\
: :' :           josselin.mouette@ens-lyon.org
`. `'                        joss@debian.org
  `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=


Reply to: