Josselin Mouette writes: > I've been arguing about this issue on a case by case basis, but having a > look at the archive makes me think we need more radical action. For a > great bunch of python packages, there is one source providing > python2.2-foo, python2.3-foo and even python2.4-foo. Even for packages > with a very few (or even zero) reverse dependencies. > > I firmly believe we should get rid of these extra binary packages. > 1. They are cluttering the archive. I don't need to recall how apt > and dpkg can be slow. > 2. They make python transitions more complicated. While a rebuild > is enough when there is only one python-foo providing the > package, you need to change the set of generated packages and go > through NEW. > 3. In most cases, they are useless. The python policy allows such > packages for cases where a specific python version is required > by a reverse dependencies. However, it should have been the > exception and not the rule. > > If people on this list agree, I'd like to submit a mass bug filing to > -devel.
No, please don't. We'll take care of them, when we change the python default version. Matthias -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
