Carey Evans wrote: > I've had a look at these packages myself. Can you tell us what stage > they're at, i.e. what still needs to be done, what problems you know > about and what you want to hear about?
I thought my first message explained that. Mostly the Depends, Conflicts, Replaces, Provides information. I've made some progress in this area. I'll try to upload new packages today. > Some things I've noticed to start with: > > - Lots of references to Python 1.5 or 2.0. > > - python2.1-base tries to install an alternative for /usr/bin/python > in its postinst, so it has to conflict with old versions of > python-base that contain this. There is no python2.1-base package. The package is python-base_2.1.1. > - The shlibs file refers to "python2-base (>= 2.1-1)" but the package > is python2.1-base. It should be "python-base (>= 2.1.1-0)". > - /usr/bin/pydoc isn't versioned, so python2.2-base will have to > conflict with this version of python2.1-base. It should probably > be /usr/bin/pydoc2.1 with a "pydoc" alternative, and start with > #!/usr/bin/python2.x as appropriate, for future versions. Again the package is python-base, not python2.2-base. pydoc depends on python-base_2.1.1 and uses #!/usr/bin/python. I don't see a problem with that. > I'd also like to know: > > - What dependencies should packaged modules declare: > a) when the maintainer only plans on supported whatever the > latest version of Python is? I think it should depend on "python". If the package includes extension modules then it needs to depend on the major and minor version of Python (I think "python (= X.Y)" works, someone please correct me if that's wrong). > b) if there'll be one package per Python version? > > - What should packages that use Python depend on? Presumably > "python" if the maintainer feels optimistic, otherwise > python2.1-base. See above. Neil
