On Fri, 2005-07-01 at 04:11, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le jeudi 30 juin 2005 à 18:20 -0700, Donovan Baarda a écrit : > > I suggest (a bit out of the blue, in no way yet endorsed by anyone) have > > two source packages; > > > > pythonX.Y-foo (where X.Y is really "X.Y", not "2.3") that generates the > > multiple binary packages python2.2-foo, python2.3-foo, python2.4-foo, > > etc. It should build depend on each corresponding python2.2-dev, > > python2.3-dev, python2.4-dev etc. > > > > python-foo, which generates the single dummy binary package python-foo > > with the appropriate dependencies to tie it to the current default > > python. > > This is complete overkill. Which problems would it actually solve? > > For most python packages, a single source and binary should be enough. > No more.
The one problem it solves, that I think is worth solving, is supporting more than one version of python. Though I guess that depends on whether the package maintainer wants to support more than one version of Python. If you do, I'm guessing this is the cleanest way for a package with extension modules. -- Donovan Baarda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
