Oliver Elphick writes:
> I remember seeing a draft Python policy some time ago but it is not
> linked from http://www.debian.org/devel/
see /usr/share/doc/python. It currently in a "proposed" state, I think
we won't submit it as formal policy for sarge.
> The reason I am looking for it is that I need to decide what to do with
> the postgresql package.
>
> The current package (7.3.4-8) contains the binary packages
> python-pygresql and python{x.x}-pygresql. In the next release PyGreSQL
> will have a separate source package, so those binary packages will be
> dropped.
>
> The postgresql binary package also contains the PL/Python procedural
> language. This is a shared library linked with python2.1 (python 2.2
> and 2.3 don't work, because in PostgreSQL 7.3.4 there is no untrusted
> PL/Python). In PostgreSQL 7.4 it will link with python 2.3.
>
> In the experimental release of PostgreSQL 7.4, I disabled the python
> config option, forgetting that PL/Python is still there even though
> PyGreSQL has gone. Therefore I have to restore PL/Python; but I would
> like to make sure it is done according to policy. So I have some
> questions.
>
> 1. Is it OK accoding to policy to link against python 2.3 only?
yes. same as with vim-python.
> 2. Should there be a separate binary package for PL/Python or is it
> OK to include it in postgresql? (The total number of files is
> one, /usr/lib/postgresql/lib/plpython.so.) Pl/perl and PL/Tcl
> are in libpgperl and libpgtcl respectively, but those packages
> also contain libraries for front-end connections (similar to
> PyGreSQL).
I think that's your choice.
Matthias
