On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 06:28:32PM -0300, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote: > Today I was playing with the idea of having gazpacho support multiple > versions of Python. Nothing really forbids it, since it doesn't use > anything that is specific to python2.4, for example.
> So I added gazpacho's module under python-support's control and made it > not Depend on python >= 2.3 and python << 2.4. I have only: > Depends: python-gtk2 (>= 2.6.0), python-support Well, this seems wrong. Your program still uses /usr/bin/python, right? So it still needs to depend on python. Specifically, you can now make it depend on python (>= 2.3) without the python (<< 2.4) part. Or maybe this should be python (>= 2.3), python (<< 2.5), if you don't yet know if your program is compatible with later versions of python. It seems that python-support itself also depends on python, but I don't think you should be relying on a transitive dependency here. > That means I'll have whatever python version is the default one, since > python-gtk2 is supposed to depend on python2.3-gtk2, and will switch to > python2.4-gtk2. So I'm guaranteeing gazpacho will work, but I'll also > have the following situation: gazpacho supports python2.4 but will only > run with that version if python2.4-gtk2 is installed. > Maybe we need a way of telling python-support that 'I can run with the > following versions, but will only be able to do that if this package > supports them'. If you have the proper dependency on python (>= 2.3), then depending on this plus python-gtk2 is enough since python-gtk2 is understood to mean "the gtk2 bindings for the current version of /usr/bin/python" -- so depending on python, python-gtk2 is guaranteed to give you a compatible pair, you won't be able to upgrade to python (>= 2.4) until a version of python-gtk2 is also available that's compatible with python 2.4. BTW, it looks like python-gtk2 is missing a dependency of its own on python (>= 2.3), python (<< 2.4) to enforce this... > Also, to make python-gtk2 support more than one version, we could only > achieve that by providing the extensions in a single package or building > them on install time. Has anyone thought about this? Sure, this has been discussed heavily over the past 6 months. Unfortunately, there has been no visible progress on getting something specified and adopted for use in unstable. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
