Gregor Hoffleit writes:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 05:37:36PM +0200, Radovan Garabik wrote:
> > I agree, but... why not wait until python 2.1.1 is released?
> > (or, if we just discuss things a bit, it will be
> > released before any action is taken and we can jump right
> > to it :-))
sure, the Debian python world moves slooowly ;-)
> >
> > You still need to modify packages when going from
> > 2.0.1 to 2.1.1
>
> I'm afraid that if we wait for 2.1.1, it will be to late to make the
> complete transition for woody.
Why are you afraid, that it's too late? You don't know the 2.1.1
release date. Any the Debian boot floppies aren't ready too.
> You're right, though, that with the current setup of the packages, 2.1.1
> again will make a small transition necessary.
I would prefer to make this second transition obsolete.
- Is it possible to ask upstream for a checkin of the changed policy
in the CVS?
- If we assume the same release speed for woody as seen for our
previous releases, then it's VERY likely that 2.1.1 is release before
woody.
You are right that a transition from 2.0 to 2.1 at this point is
unlikely for woody. Therefore I propose to upgrade to 2.1 now and
upgrade to 2.1.1 during the woody release process.
PLEASE evaluate these options!
If 2.0 becomes the default python version for woody, then make
(probably non-free) 2.1 available for woody. There are many packages
that won't retain source compatibility to 2.0.
I fear when woody is released we'll have a stable outdated python
version for which it becomes difficult to build newer third party
packages ...
Matthias
> We have to discuss the policy of dependencies and paths for the Python
> packages at some point.
and don't forget the Debian python policy ...
