David Paleino, 2011-02-08 16:47 UTC+0100: > The problem is, I haven't found a nice&clean solution to this.
I think there are basically two solutions:
1. ipthons's way:
* install a single real binary bpython (and bpython3)
that supports several Python versions,
* install several wrappers bpython2.6, bpython2.7 (and bpython3.2)
that run bpython with the corresponding interpreter if it is
available, or display a warning explaining that it must be
installed;
2. multi-binaries way:
* install several binaries bpython2.6, bpython2.7 and bpython3.2,
and make bpython a symlink to the default one, perhaps using the
alternatives system.
The first solution would work because bpython is actually made to be run
with any Python version from the same branch (2 or 3, not both). It
would still imply to separate the binaries bpython from bpython3, and
perhaps put them in two packages too. The binary dependencies would look
like python2.6 | python2.7 | python3.2 (if a single package is chosen).
This would be the easiest solution, and I think it is coherent with the
upstream decision to have a single polymorphic binary.
I have a preference for the second solution, that would simply imply
running setup.py with each targetted interpreter, and renaming the
resulting binaries, which would be needed anyway in order to support
both Python 2 and 3. However it would also imply multiple packages:
python-bpython, python3-bpython, bpython2.6, bpython2.7, bpython3.2. I
find this solution a bit cleaner in general but harder to implement.
I shall think about that and start implementing it. Patches (or git pull
requests) will follow.
Librement,
--
,--.
: /` ) Tanguy Ortolo <xmpp:[email protected]> <irc://irc.oftc.net/Elessar>
| `-' Debian Maintainer
\_
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
