On 10/15/2013 07:01 PM, Dmitry Shachnev wrote: > 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
Let's please forget about the above, and focus on python-coverage (eg: the Python 2.x implementation) to provide the /usr/bin/coverage support. Thomas -- 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/525d2bad.1090...@debian.org
