Re: Future requirements for specifying supported Python versionsand transition support
On Saturday, June 26, 2010 04:33:52 pm Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Piotr Ożarowski (piotr@debian.org) [100626 21:47]:
> > > one thing that isn't clear for me, what is (or is there any) opinion
> > > from doko / POX on this?
> >
> > I proposed the (optional and stripped down) X-Python-Version /
> > X-Python3-Version field.
> >
> > To be honest, all we want to know is if release team still wants the
> > XS-P-V and XB-P-V fields, the rest is implementation details (about
> > which we will not ask release team for opinions ;-P)
>
> I assume the release team wants something which makes the next transitions
> as easy as possible, doesn't confuse people, and of course repects the
> policy (e.g. if a packages dependencies are fullfiled, it needs to be
> useable), and has enough buy-in within the debian python community (so
> that we don't face 5 different incompatible implementations). Whatever
> that means ;)
>
> But perhaps allow the other team members to disagree with me if
> necessary.
>
I think there is near universal consensus that depends of the binary packages
is the best data source for managing transitions for Python. There may, in
the future, be better ways for Python3, but that's Squeeze +1 (at least)
material.
There is a bit of difference over how to specify which versions to build for,
but if we don't need to expose it externally (and I don't see a case for
this), then it's an internal matter for package build systems as long as they
support a requirement that arch: any packages be binNMUable for new Python
versions.
We've discussed this pretty broadly on debian-python@l.d.o and in #debian-
python, so I think we have "enough" buy-in.
Scott K
Reply to: