* Matthias Klose [Tue, 25 Jul 2006 00:56:29 +0200]: > > > I agree that having Python-Version in binary packages is dislikeable. > > > Out of curiosity, Matthias, would be a DEBIAN/pyversions file able to > > > provide the same information to pycentral? ^^^^^^^^^^^
> just looking at the Packages (and the Sources) files. Yeah, I knew this was the reason for putting the info in the headers, I understand that. But I was only asking if pycentral itself would have enough with DEBIAN/pyversions, which is different from implying that I'd rather have pycentral use D/pv at the cost of losing the benefits of having that info in the Packages file. ;-) I assume the answer to this question is yes, yes? Now, I have a sequence of events that have left me puzzled: - After writing the above, I intended to ask why XB-Python-Version was necessary in the Packages file, if that information was already in Sources via XS-Python-Version. - But then I thought: "d'oh, obvious: XB-P-V must be an _expanded_ version of XS-P-V, with a plain list of python version the package was built for, and this is much easier to parse than an expresion with >= and <<, plus only with XS-P-V you can't know e.g. if a binNMU after dropping 2.3 was successful or not". - But after that, I quickly discover that my assumption is wrong, and the archive contains a number of binary packages whose Python-Version header contains [<=>], and it's in fact the same as P-V in the source package. With this, I'm puzzled, since I fail to understand what information you can obtain from Packages.gz that you can't from Sources.gz? (The point of this exercise being that it'd be incredibly great if Python-Version would be only present in source packages, and not in binaries, which contain DEBIAN/pyversions instead.) Thanks, -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Listening to: Massive Attack - Group Four -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]