Jérôme Marant writes: > Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Jérôme Marant writes: > > > What about proposal and policy from Neil and his efforts? > > > > - the proposed packaging scheme doesn't allow smooth upgrades between > > one python version and a next version. compare python-1.5 to libc5 > > and python-2.1 to libc6. there was a clear upgrade procedure to do > > the transition. The proposed packaging scheme doesn't allow such an > > upgrade. From my point of view, this is a showstopper. > > What I dislike is that I have the impression that instead of discussing > these issues with everyone on the list, you silently prepared the packages > with Gregor. You came up with your version of packages as if nothing > happened. Talking to Neil would have avoided that he works on this > for nothing. I'm disappointed.
<off topic> Reading http://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2001/debian-python-200109/msg00003.html I don't see any response/reaction from Neil on Gregor's last proposal. So did he "silently ignore" Gregor's packages? I didn't "silently prepared the packages". I submitted patches to Gregor based on his packages. What is wrong with this approach? These derived packages were available. The same way you argument on Neil's "work for nothing", you could do this for Gregor's ideas and work not incorporated in Neil's packages. </off topic> We are approaching the freeze. I think we all want to have a recent version of python in woody, but at this point it's probably not enough time to safely replace the 1.5 version with 2.1, so we have to keep it, and keep it in a way, that existing 1.5 packages don't need to be rebuilt. No question that we could have done better, if we started in July with the transition... There is no work lost. We'll need this work for a clean transition between python versions. But let's start with it after woody is released and hope for better responsiveness and communication of people involved in the packaging. Matthias
