On Fri, 02 Jun 2006, Joe Wreschnig wrote: [Steve Langasek] > > Yes, this was also discussed in the BoF, with the same conclusion: because > > providing python2.x-foo can only be done safely if the package depends on > > the python2.x versions of all other modules it requires, making transitions > > more brittle as a result, these virtual packages should really only be > > provided in response to specific demand for them. > > For those of us who were not at the BoF and only getting sketchy > information about it (e.g. Raphael's information is wrong, or at least > horribly incomplete, I guess, and presentation slides are not a good > summary of technical policy), when are we going to have a real proposal > to comment on, or at least follow?
I don't think so since AFAIK nobody took notes. And since time was passing I posted this summary to at least have something written. > What happened to "Python 2.4 first, new infrastructure later"? I don't know really... Matthias has created python2.4 packages using pycentral. He would like to use that as "official helper tool". Now he's rewriting dh_python in that direction. More on pycentral vs python-support in another mail. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
