On Thu, 2003-09-11 at 13:32, Kenneth Pronovici wrote: [...] > Actually, the kicker is, pychecker isn't a Python script - it's a shell > script (condensed below): [...]
Using a script like this to pick which version of python to use seems wierd to me... it doesn't have much benefits over just using a particular version of python explicitly directly on the python script. > > There are two downsides; you introduce a bunch of new packages, and you > > replicate the same files in each package. > > 'Course, that's the same problem that every other Python package has, > right? [...] In many (most?) cases the "python[X.Y]-foo + python-foo wrapper" scheme is used for extension modules that have different binaries for different versions of python anyway. I don't know if this scheme is used for many pure-python modules because of the inefficient duplication. > Ok, I see what you're saying. I agree, the second option is probably > the best at this time. If my postinst builds the .pyc files with the > default python, and assuming no one runs pychecker as root with a python > version other than the default, this is as close to an optimal best-case > as I'm going to get. At least until the transition from 2.3 to 2.4, > when all of the .pyc files will become invalid again. <sigh> hopefuly by the time python (2.4) is upon us, it will have in place a scheme to reconfigure all packages that depend on "python" so that they get re-compiled. -- Donovan Baarda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://minkirri.apana.org.au/~abo/
