On ma, 2007-01-15 at 18:15 +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote: > On 1/2/07, Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Alexandre Fayolle writes: > > > Am I the only one with a mixed feeling about this? I mean, we spent time > > > last spring updating our packages to use the new Python policy, write > > > nice loops in debian/rules to build for all versions specified by > > > `pyversions -r -v`. Now we would need to tweak the Makefile again and > > > clutter it with a hardcoded "2.5" in the list even though this version is > > > requested debian/control (or in some other place if you chose the other > > > way without XS-Python-Version). > > > > > > I have to admit that I am a bit disapointed by this, to say the least. > > > Why are we shipping python2.5 in etch if we don't ship the python > > > extension modules people expect to find (PIL, mx.DateTime, Numeric...) > > > > When etch/sid went into UVF after the 2.5 release, many depending > > packages and extensions were not yet usable/buildable for 2.5. Adding > > 2.5 was not considered an option after talking with the release team > > (Andreas Barth), because it would have introduced a lot of RC reports, > > which either needed to be fixed by new upstream versions or disabling > > 2.5 support for this extension. Explicitely adding support for 2.5 on > > a per package base doesn't introduce these extra RC failures during > > our release process at the cost of having the burden on the package > > maintainer, not the release team. > > > > Looking at mx and numeric, support for 2.5 can be added, but for > > example PIL explicitely states in the 1.1.6 release notes that this > > version adds complete support for 2.5. > > > > Maybe support for 2.5 for all extensions looks possible now, but at the > > time of the UVF it wasn't. You might want to create a python-etch > > repository and rebuild all extensions where possible to support > > 2.5, and add new upstream versions where necessary. Once done, > > propose the versions in this repository to the release team, but I > > doubt it will be allowed into etch. > > > > Mixed feeling yes, but IMO unavoidable with our release schedule for > > etch. > > Is there work done on this? If not may python2.5 be removed from Etch, > or should I file a grave bug, "if python2.5 doesn't load pygtk and gtk > modules, then what use is it?".
Er, there's plenty of use for plain 2.5, without any extension -- Programming should be fun, otherwise you're doing something wrong. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]