On Wednesday, June 30, 2010 04:51:38 pm Piotr Ożarowski wrote: > [Scott Kitterman, 2010-06-30] > > > For Python3: > > > > 1. A new field called X-Python3-Version: It does not support lists of > > versions (e.g. (3.0, 3.1)). Acceptable values are a single version (e.g > > 3.1), greater than or equal to a version (e.g. >= 3.1), or strictly less > > than a version (e.g. << 3.2). Versions 2 or less will raise an error. > > > > 2. There is no #2. If your build system uses py3versions -r, then you > > need X-P3-V, if it's not there, an error will be raised. If it doesn't > > use py3versions -r, then it's between the maintainer and their build > > system. The field is not mandatory. > > why? If py3versions is invoked in debian/rules, then there definitely is > at least one python3-* binary package. Why do you want to make this > field required? I'd make it optional and assume all 3.X versions if > X-P3-V is not set.
I'm trying to minimize the amount of implicit magic we do. There was strong consensus for Python 2 that "all" wasn't a great idea for XS- P-V and so we point people away from it. No implicit all seem the logical next step for Python 3 were we have more freedom to make things work the way we want. If there's some consensus for an implicit "all" in Python 3, I won't object. Scott K -- 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/201006301658.35405.deb...@kitterman.com
