python 2.4?

>>>>> Josselin Mouette <jossdebian.org> writes:

> Le mercredi 17 mai 2006 à 14:12 +0530, Ganesan
Rajagopal a écrit :
>> I understand the upgrade issues that pythonX.Y
packages cause with multiple
>> versions of python in Debian. However, for binary
modules I don't really see
>> an alternative in some cases. How about this
alternate proposal for binary
>> modules
>> 
>> * python-foo must support the current python
version. 
>> * python-foo can optionally include support for
older python versions (I am
>> still not convinced on this one).
>> * Alternatively, pythonX.Y-foo is allowed to
support older versions of python 
>> in the archive.

> Over my dead body.

That makes it a bit difficult, where do you live ?

> There's no point in simplifying python packaging if in
fact it becomes
> more complicated because we allow exceptions.

Then please suggest how to handle the issues that I raised
with the new
policy.

Ganesan

-- 
Ganesan Rajagopal


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-REQUESTlists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble?
Contact listmasterlists.debian.org

Le jeudi 18 mai 2006 à 08:17 +0530, Ganesan Rajagopal a
écrit :
> > There's no point in simplifying python packaging
if in fact it becomes
> > more complicated because we allow exceptions.
> 
> Then please suggest how to handle the issues that I
raised with the new
> policy.

I don't see any issues raised in your messages. Having
extra .so files
is the drawback we have accepted when deciding upon this new
policy. As
for the ctypes example, it can be trivially handled with
dependencies.
-- 
 .''`.           Josselin Mouette        /\./\
: :' :           josselin.mouetteens-lyon.org
`. `'                        jossdebian.org
  `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom