Hi [I agree that this should have have been sent also to debian-python]
Dne Mon, 16 Feb 2009 20:33:48 +0100
Matthias Klose <d...@cs.tu-berlin.de> napsal(a):
> - 3.0/3.1: I do not plan to upload 3.0 to unstable or experimental,
> but will prepare 3.1 packages for experimental and upload those
> to unstable with the final release or a late release candidate.
> The 3.1 release is planned for April 2009.
I would be great to have also 3.0.x (even in experimental and with no
third party modules at all). At least for us who also wear an upstream
hat sometimes.
> This change should make the request to conditionalize the inclusion of
> /usr/local/lib/pythonX.Y/site-packages into sys.path obsolete.
>
> If needed we can provide a symlink /usr/lib/pythonX.Y/site-packages
> pointing to dist-packages.
Does this mean that /usr/local/lib/pythonX.Y/site-packages is meant for
custom installation of Python in /usr/local/,
while /usr/local/lib/pythonX.Y/dist-packages for packages for Python
shipped in Debian? That looks like too complicated to me and it will
lead to mistakes, when single directory (/usr/local/lib/pythonX.Y) is
supposed to be partly used by two different Python installations.
> Various
> -------
>
> There are other things which may be worth a look.
- Can you guys please finally sit down and agree on one solution for
handling python modules? I still think that having two (slightly
different) ways of doing this task is not the way to go. I really do
not see technical reason for this situation. I have no preference at
all and I'm actually using both things in my packages, but I really
do not think it is way to go. And it would be great if we can have
single tool, which gets more testing and will have less bugs than
current concurrent solutions.
--
Michal Čihař | http://cihar.com | http://blog.cihar.com
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
