On Tue, 06 Jun 2006, Matthias Klose wrote: > > > > 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)?
The whole point of python-support/python-central is that modules do not need to be rebuilt for a newer python version. So what are you trying to address here? > > > > > 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? Same question as above: unless that package uses private extensions (which I haven't seen yet) why does it need to be rebuilt? 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]
