On Sat, Jul 14, 2001 at 04:05:56PM +1200, Carey Evans wrote: | D-Man <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | | > Yes. Maybe each extension should just depend on a single version of | > python and need to be rebuilt for each new python release. | | It makes things considerably simpler, from my point of view. | | Then, of course, we need unique package names for each package.
Yeah | Something like "python-imaging-python1.5", "python-imaging-python2.0" | and "python-imaging-2.1"? Aagh. Since we have "python1.5" and "python2.1", how about "python1.5-imaging" and "python2.1-imaging". Then if the maintainer wants to include a version on the package it could be (I don't know PIL's version) "python2.1-imaging2.3". I don't think that is too ugly. | (Picking on python-imaging because it contains binary modules, so it's | version specific anyway.) | | > | Are there any other reasons to provide all the modules for Python | > | 1.5.2 (now more than two years old) in Debian 3.0? | > | > Who knows what people might be using that isn't packaged for Debian. | | True. I feel that we can't keep everyone happy forever, and Python | 1.5 has to go away someday; OTOH, I'm running quite up to date | unstable, so maybe I don't have the same perspective as many users. ;) I agree with both of those, though I think that at least one "old" version should be kept. I don't think 1.5.2 needs to disappear quite yet because it is the most common version (in a lot of diff. environments). It could probably go in the next (after woody) release because by then 2.x will have filled it place as the most commonly used. -D