On 25 August 2015 at 10:37, Barry Warsaw <ba...@debian.org> wrote: > On Aug 25, 2015, at 10:03 AM, Robert Collins wrote: > >>On 25 August 2015 at 09:57, Barry Warsaw <ba...@debian.org> wrote: >>... >>> By all means, if there isn't any >>> significant difference between a standalone package and what's available in >>> the current supported Python 3 version, let's not ship unnecessary binary >>> packages. >> >>Even at the cost of having to patch upstream projects? > > Sorry, I'm not sure what the question means.
Lets take Ironic. While it supports Python 2.7+ and 3.4+ it will depend on 'mock' for unit testing. If Debian has only Python 2.7 and 3.5 and wants to build Ironic for only Python 3.5 - which is a reasonable thing, then 'mock' is needed (because Ironic depends on 'mock'). We could: - patch Ironic to use unittest.mock on Python 3.5 - patch the stdlib to make 'mock' be an alias to unittest.mock - include 'python3-mock' as a binary package - not run the Ironic unit tests. Perhaps to you 'thing we package X uses library Y' implies 'binary package X is uncessary' - but the thing is that 'binary package X' may not be a significant difference vs the Python version in Debian at the time - even if there are significant differences vs older still upstream-supported Python versions - which is what the developer ecosystem will be referencing. -Rob -- Robert Collins <rbtcoll...@hp.com> Distinguished Technologist HP Converged Cloud
