On Sun, Oct 28, 2001 at 02:57:15PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote: > Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > 2.1.1 Support Only The Default Version [...] > > > + a new change to the major version of python, will make all > > > packages depending on the default version being uninstalled, right? > > > If so, I don't think it is the Right Thing. > > > > s/major//. Correct. Assume we release woody with python (2.1), and we > > But I don't want all my python packages to be uninstalled because > python changed. This is unacceptable.
So choose one of the other alteratives available in the policy :-) The beauty is there are three different ways of making packages, each with different benefits and drawbacks. The "support only the default version" option is IMHO a bad option for most packages, but some people might like it for their packages. It's biggest drawback is packages using it _must_ be upgraded when Python upgrades. It's other drawback is it doesn't automaticly leave you with pythonX.Y-<foo> packages to support older versions of Python. Instead these have to be made _after_ python-<foo> has been fixed to support the new version of Python. However, people might like using it when they want only one python-<foo> package that will definitely break for a different version of Python. For people who have a package that meets this criteria, it is better to have the old packages uninstalled when python changes than to have everything that uses them mysteriosly stop working. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ABO: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for more info, including pgp key ----------------------------------------------------------------------
