D-Man <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It might be more convenient, unless a user, for some strange reason,
> wants to only have an older version of python.
In which case they won't have anything else installed that depends on
"python", and they'll just install "python-2.1", for example, and
never see "python-2.2".
Given this, /usr/bin/python better be managed by alternatives.
[...]
> Are you saying that gcc 2.95 and 3.0 can peacefully co-exist on a
> system? That would be good news to me :-).
Yep. There's still the familiar problem of differing C++ ABIs, so
everything in woody should still be compiled with gcc 2.95.
[...]
> Sure, but also consider older packages. For example, we are now
> moving to 2.0 (or 2.1) for the "default" python. We still want to
> provide 1.5.2 versions of all the other packages, so they should (now)
> specify that they don't work with >= 2.0 because we know that now.
However, that can lead to packages breaking when a new version of
Python is installed, without pulling in the newer extension modules
and packages that use the new scope rules properly, and have variables
named "yield" and "div" renamed to something else, etc.
dpkg and apt provide very good dependency checking, so we should try
to use it.
Anyway, *do* we actually need all the extension modules for Python
1.5.2? For Debian itself, there's Zope and Mailman, but they don't
depend on any other Python packages. reportbug uses python-newt, but
it should be changed once python-2.1 is available, so that Python
1.5.2 isn't installed by default on new Debian 3.0 installations.
Are there any other reasons to provide all the modules for Python
1.5.2 (now more than two years old) in Debian 3.0?
> Either it is optimistic, or there was no known conflict with a newer
> version (because it didn't exist ;-)) when it was built.
This may be true, especially when Python 2, which would break lots of
stuff, was in the distant future. Python 3K may be far away now, but
Python 2.x is breaking stuff with every release.
> Well, I have no fancy title (like "Debian Maintainer") so I really
> have no authority on the matter. The idea just came to me and it
> seemed pretty good so I thought I'd share it :-). You can do what you
> like with the idea.
I probably shouldn't be using my @debian.org address for this
discussion anyway; I've done one package upload in the last six
months, which hardly makes me an active Debian maintainer or any kind
of authority.
I'm not really talking just to you, but generally; by all means keep
coming up with ideas to improve the Debian Python packages, but please
don't keep Python 2.1 out of Debian 3.0!
--
Carey Evans http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/c.evans/
"I'm not the only one who disagrees with everything."
- Fur Patrol, _Man In A Box_
