On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 11:01:23AM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 10:17:13AM +0200, Domenico Andreoli wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 09:25:20AM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 01:01:39AM +0200, Domenico Andreoli wrote: > > > > Second issue is about the python version used to build Boost.Python, > > > > which I chose to be 2.5, trying to anticipate transition of default > > > > python to 2.5. This transition is planned but not yet started, so I > > > > was pretty optimist and too ahead respect the times. > > > > > > > > This does not help the integration of Boost based Python extensions > > > > with other python packages but the only reported problem is with tagpy > > > > (RC bug #426871) and its rdepend sonata. IMHO, these could go with > > > > Python 2.5 and be happy with current Boost.Python. Again, I do not > > > > think Boost should stay in unstable because of this. > > > > > > Why don't you build it for every python in Debian as you should ? I > > > mean the python policy wants you to support at least default python (2.4 > > > atm) and if possible every python out there. Is that _this_ difficult to > > > build 2.4 _and_ 2.5 extensions ? > > > > i should encode the python version in the soname, changing it in a > > debian-specific way. > > I absolutely don't get it. Are you sure it is a python _extension_ ? > Extensions live in a versionned directory and are co-installable.
indeed Boost.Python is not a python extension and do not recall to have ever said anything like this :) > It looks like this is rather some kind of shared library that helps > generating python bindings for boost C++ "things". In which case the > question is: does your library compiled against python2.5 supports > generating python2.4 modules or not ? facts show that it is not generally advisable to build extensions based on Boost.Python with a python version different from the one used for build it. > if the answer is no, then you're wrong, you should _always_ build > against the default python in debian, else the life of people using > boost-generated extensions will be a nightmare (as they won't be able to > create extensions for the default python themselves). i agree, i should have built it using python 2.4 but i didn't because of the reasons i already explained. the only packaged extensions which could suffer are python-mapnik, python-libavg and python-tagpy. of these only python-tagpy has any rdepend, which are sonata and elisa. i don't see how forcing python-libavg, python-mapnik and python-tagpy to anticipate transition to python 2.5 would hurt that much. now, to fix 1.34.0 for these packages, a full rebuild of boost is required as long as the build of regina-normal, kig and democracyplayer, the other rdepends of libboost-python1.34.0. this easily means bringing in other transitions (glib at least, i think) together with the boost one. regards, domenico -----[ Domenico Andreoli, aka cavok --[ http://www.dandreoli.com/gpgkey.asc ---[ 3A0F 2F80 F79C 678A 8936 4FEE 0677 9033 A20E BC50 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
