> That depends ... if you need some 3rd party package/module that debian > built only for 2.3 then yes, but if all the package/modules that you > need have python2.4 builds in debian then you can use 2.4. this is the case with wxWidgets and kid
> See the Python Policy for the various circumstances for each > arrangement. Hmm, I've just read it. It really allows python-something to be package 'something' for the default version of python. Still wouldn't be better to name the packages according to python version from the start? For easier and more reliable dependency management? And... I would expect I was not the only user to list all python 2.3/2.4 packages to see what apt repository offers (and at the same time, what you can do with python) - examining python2.3-* packages one by one. > | would it be so difficult to rename the packages according to this scheme? > > For some it isn't, for some it is. For some it is difficult? Why? Dependencies are maintained, apt-get install still works without changing package name... but it gives the programmers a bit more freedom. > > [...] > > | Then there's also package python-wxgtk2.6: > | * as it's actually python2.3 version, I would rename it > | python2.3-wxgtk2.6 * metapackage python-wxgtk2.6 depending on > | python2.3-wxgtk2.6 > | * what about python-wxgtk (?) > | (* again, we would be prepared for python2.4-wxgtk2.6) > > I haven't built wx, but I can imagine that it would not be trivial. > The maintainer chose to only build one variation, and so it is only > for the default version (python 2.3) and doesn't specify that version > in the package name. If you were to simultaneously build a python 2.4 > version, then that naming would be appropriate. Hmm this looks like saying... I'll name it python-* because we're not going to make this package for 2.4. > At this point we really just need to move the default to 2.4. 2.4 has > been available for a rather long time now. Yes, I agree, couldn't this be the first step? To have all packages working as python2.4-* and finally just modify python2.3 and python2.4... and then switch at once, changing only the dependencies. > PS I am aware of several factors (including C++ and other > transitions) that resulted in not starting a python transition > sooner. Regardless, 2.4 isn't "new" anymore and ought to be the > default. I look forward to seeing this happen :-). Ok -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
