Raphael Hertzog writes: > On Tue, 06 Jun 2006, Matthias Klose wrote: > > > > The 'Provides: python2.3-foo, python2.4-foo' is missing for all > > > > packages with private modules and scripts (without shared modules). > > > > For that case we do need XB-Python-Version. If we do want to drop the > > > > Provides for packages where they are not needed, we need it for shared > > > > modules as well. > > > > > > What for? Modules are automatically available to all python versions > > > (except those which do not support all versions, but then we can't do > > > better...). > > > > please read again. I'm not talking about shared modules. > > I've read "If we do want to drop the Provides for packages where they are > not needed, we need it for shared modules as well." > > It's that part that I'm questioning.
How do you tell about packages which need a rebuild (by looking at the package database)? > > > > > Don't you think this new field and Provides are redondant, and that > > > > > you > > > > > could decide which rebuilds are necessary from it ? > > > > > > > > no, not for packages with private extensions. > > > > ... or private modules. > > > > > Does this kind of package exist? (ie do you have an example?) > > > > i.e. zope2.x > > > > we have to keep that information for packages with private modules > > using a non-standard version of python as well. > > What's the problem with private modules ? > > AFAIK the only "issue" is handling of bytecompilation and this problem is > already under control by the packages which really benefit from > bytecompilation. > > Am I wrong? If yes, what do we want to improve? How do you see, that a package with private data using the default python version needs a rebuild? Matthias -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
