"Barry Warsaw" <ba...@python.org> wrote:
>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? > Probably almost trivial with python-apt. Yes. Much better. Scott K P. S. No need to CC me, I'm subscribed to the list. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/376e8ddd-00bd-43f9-8481-ca3e4e872...@email.android.com
