On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> 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 :-))
> >
> > 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.
2.1.1 is expected in a month, Woody's freeze is ~2 months away(?)
is that correct?
> You're right, though, that with the current setup of the packages, 2.1.1
> again will make a small transition necessary.
>
> We have to discuss the policy of dependencies and paths for the Python
> packages at some point.
Would it not be easier if it was always a python-<version>-base that
provided "python"; packages would either depend on the version of
Python they need, or just "python" if it didn't matter. Getting the
various Python's to co-exist isn't a problem, but trying to rotate
them through package name changes seems to be... so why do it.
Can this be done...
- install stuff into the dir of the Python it depends on; you would
have a "python" libs dir for each installed version of Python,
and one for the packages that don't care which Python runs them.
- separate the .py and .pyc|o files
- have each python executable that lives outside of a lib dir use
#!/usr/bin/env python
or
#!/usr/bin/env python<major>.<minor>
depending on what the package the file came from has in
its Depends: line.
?
...and which problems would it not solve?
- Bruce
