On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 11:40:50AM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote: > On Sun, 2003-10-05 at 02:55, Matthias Klose wrote: > > Donovan Baarda writes: > > > The second problem is is when we get python (2.4), a new python2.3 > > > package will need to be released just to fix the dependencies. The > > > Python Policy was designed so that no pythonX.Y(-foo) packages would > > > need to be updated when python (X.Y+1) is released. > > > > not true. the 2.3 upload is needed for not building the unversioned > > python packages. > > Hmm, I forgot about that. Is this a hassle? Would it be possible, and > would it help, to have "python" built from it's own empty source > package?
For what it's worth, I think a python-defaults source package or some such would help: at the moment there are several packages needlessly stalled on python2.3, even though their dependencies are simply 'python2.3 (>= 2.3)' or similar. If the python binary package were built from a separate source package then we could decouple transitions from the task of keeping the versioned packages up to date. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]