Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le lundi 15 mai 2006 à 15:51 -0500, Joey Hess a écrit : > >>Josselin Mouette wrote: >> >>>The patch looks fine. >>> >>>However, we should be cautious with regard to such changes. With this >>>patch, dependencies like python-numeric (>= 24.2) will work, but it is >>>going to break the buildds as the arch-all package will be unavailable >>>as long as it hasn't been rebuilt. >> >>So are you saying that the patch shouldn't be applied or that >>maintainers need to be warned to rebuild stuff in the correct order? > > > I'm saying the release team and buildd administrators are going to > strangle us with (clean) socks if we apply this patch.
I was working on a solution to #359996 and it occurred to me that there was no easy way let dh_python do its thing *and* still get a versioned dependency of the form: Package: python-foo Depends: python2.3-foo (= source_version) Now, it seems to me that it is relatively important to have that, otherwise you end up with bugs like #359996. I know that all it would take would be for someone to have python2.3-eyed3 installed because some other package depends on it, follwed by an apt-get update (where the eyed3 packages have new versions), followed again by the user installing the eyed3 package to get the CLI tools. If the dependency is not versioned, then you end up with a version mismatch, which could cause the package to cease functioning. That said, I think it would be a good thing in the sense of long term QA to have this in dh_python. What I don't understand is why the arch all packages will not be available until the packages have been rebuilt. -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://familiasanchez.net/~roberto
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
