On Wednesday, April 18, 2012 10:35:04 AM Paul Elliott wrote: > On Wednesday, April 18, 2012 10:12:24 AM Barry Warsaw wrote: > > On Apr 18, 2012, at 03:09 AM, Paul Elliott wrote: > > >I am not a expert python packager. I am dubious about a bunch of cargo > > >cult packagers all writing seperate but similar debian/rules > > >complications. > > > > That's why I wrote the style guide; hopefully at least we'll converge on > > one set of (well-documented!) cargo. :) > > > > >It seems like one is creating a lot of debugging/maintainance problems. > > > > > >Why can not some expert that really know what she is doing write the > > >neccessary infrastructure so that one could write > > > > > >> %: > > >> dh $@ --with python2-and-python3 > > > > > >I am not an expert and not particularly interested in joining a cargo > > >cult. > > > > > >I think that would be a better way to encourage python3 extensions. > > > > As Piotr and Stefano pointed out, multibuild will make many things better. > > Still, IMHO we should not wait for multibuild to start adding Python 3 > > support to Debian packages. > > > > If upstream supports Python 3, I would really love to have that available > > in Debian asap. > > > > Cheers, > > -Barry > > Well for an interim solution, what is wrong with writting a completely > seperate source package for the python 3 version, with the intent to > collapse it into the python2 version when tools become available? > > That way I don't have to join a cargo cult.
Alternately you could invest a little time in understanding what Barry's written up and build both sets of binaries from one source. This is the usual method. A separate source package doesn't make it any easier as it would still have to build for python3. 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/31795822.DETZSrihNh@scott-latitude-e6320
