On Jun 21, 2010, at 06:30 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: >I think most people install Python modules and extensions as dependencies of >applications they care to use. For Python developers that actually care >about such things, I think it's better that the just install both manually.
I agree about the former. I'm just posing the question, I'm not sure I have a strong opinion about the latter. For developers, I guess 'apt-get build-dep' gets close, but it doesn't seem quite right. >If we maintain a standard that if in Python you import foo, then the Python >package name is python-foo and the Python3 package is names python3-foo, I >would think this is manageable. I think that adding this metapackage would >impose a lot of complexity on packagers and/or python helper maintainers, >bloat the Packages.gz file signficantly, and probably provide confusing >search results. > >I'm not sure what the best answer is, but I'm not sure there is one that's >even good. Maybe the answer isn't in adding more package dependencies, but instead in a tool that you could wrap around apt. E.g. if I wanted Python package foo installed for all installed Python versions, I think it wouldn't be too difficult to write a little helper that could map from Python module name to python-foo and python3-foo binary package names, doing the apt-get install for you. Does that sound more reasonable? -Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
