On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 1:19 PM, Thomas Goirand <z...@debian.org> wrote: > If we have update-alternatives, then it's very easy for a maintainer to > choose which one of the 2 implementation it wants: > > Build-Depends: python-coverage > Build-Conflicts: python3-coverage > > if you need /usr/bin/coverage to be python-coverage, or: > > Build-Depends: python3-coverage > Build-Conflicts: python-coverage
This looks wrong to me. If these programs are incompatible (i.e. provide different outputs), then this is a bug. Otherwise, there should be no need in Build-Conflicts. > if you want /usr/bin/coverage to be the python3-coverage implementation. > That's easy enough. Also, with priorities like I wished to set, > python-coverage (eg: Python 2) was the preferred implementation. I think our goal is to switch as many modules to Python 3 as we can, so I don't see any point in giving python-coverage a bigger priority. -- Dmitry Shachnev -- 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/CAKimPHWx60HONdEtZ1EUEah98r7pQ4DgxmNc=DRhYJF06T4+=w...@mail.gmail.com
