On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 07:28:23PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > Colin Watson writes: > > 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. > > It does help for python applications, which depend on an explicit > python version. I did not count packages with a 'python2.3 (>= 2.3)' > dependency. > > It does not help for library packages building a python-foo binary > package. For this case you would have to separate this binary package > to build from it's own source (but maybe this could be built from the > python-defaults package as well ...).
Hmm. How many python-foo binary packages are there? (I count 138 in testing. Ouch.) How feasible would it be to have at least some of the core ones all built from a hypothetical python-defaults? This is blue-sky - I'm not involved enough in Python to know whether it's feasible, unfortunately. I have a feeling that it might cause different problems. > But maybe an upload of the current python2.3 packages (without > changing the default version) to testing would help as well in this > case. In the absence of the above, it would certainly be helpful in future if a version of pythonX.Y that satisfies the shlibs in unstable could be ensured to be safely in testing before changing the default version. I realize that was difficult this time round because glibc and gcc-3.3 got in the way. Cheers, -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]