Re: Hunting useless binary packages

2005-06-14 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le mardi 14 juin 2005 à 11:42 +0200, Matthias Klose a écrit : > > If people on this list agree, I'd like to submit a mass bug filing to > > -devel. > > No, please don't. We'll take care of them, when we change the python > default version. You mean changing these packages' structure at the time o

Re: Hunting useless binary packages

2005-06-14 Thread Matthias Klose
Josselin Mouette writes: > I've been arguing about this issue on a case by case basis, but having a > look at the archive makes me think we need more radical action. For a > great bunch of python packages, there is one source providing > python2.2-foo, python2.3-foo and even python2.4-foo. Even for

Re: Hunting useless binary packages

2005-06-13 Thread Cedric Delfosse
Le lundi 13 juin 2005 à 22:24 +0200, Josselin Mouette a écrit : [...] > 3. In most cases, they are useless. The python policy allows such > packages for cases where a specific python version is required > by a reverse dependencies. However, it should have been the > exc

Re: Hunting useless binary packages

2005-06-13 Thread Thomas Viehmann
Hi Josselin. Josselin Mouette wrote: > 3. In most cases, they are useless. The python policy allows such > packages for cases where a specific python version is required > by a reverse dependencies. However, it should have been the > exception and not the rule. That's

Hunting useless binary packages

2005-06-13 Thread Josselin Mouette
I've been arguing about this issue on a case by case basis, but having a look at the archive makes me think we need more radical action. For a great bunch of python packages, there is one source providing python2.2-foo, python2.3-foo and even python2.4-foo. Even for packages with a very few (or eve