Re: [Draft] Debian Python Policy 0.2

2001-10-12 Thread Anthony Towns 
On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 10:28:58AM -0700, Neil Schemenauer wrote:
 Anthony Towns wrote:
  Hrm. That doesn't seem to make sense. For example, Python 2.1 supports
  the Python 2.0 API completely, and Python 2.2 supports the Python 2.1
  API completely too, doesn't it?
 API in this context means binary API.  Only Python 2.1.X supports the
 2.1 API.
 The point is probably moot anyhow since I've almost finished creating
 packages using the scheme proposed by Donavon and others.  I need to
 update the policy and doing some more testing yet though.

Which scheme was that?

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

 Security here. Yes, maam. Yes. Groucho glasses. Yes, we're on it.
   C'mon, guys. Somebody gave an aardvark a nose-cut: somebody who
can't deal with deconstructionist humor. Code Blue.
-- Mike Hoye,
  see http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/armadillos.txt



pgpJ19LhlTsFQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [Draft] Debian Python Policy 0.2

2001-10-10 Thread Anthony Towns 
On Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 01:52:00PM -0700, Neil Schemenauer wrote:
 Donovan Baarda wrote:
  Hmmm, but if only python can provide python-api-*, then any packages that
  depend on python-api-X.Y will be broken when a new version of python
  providing python-api-X.Z comes out, and no python-X.Y package can be
  compatible with it.

Hrm. That doesn't seem to make sense. For example, Python 2.1 supports
the Python 2.0 API completely, and Python 2.2 supports the Python 2.1
API completely too, doesn't it? Or something almost to that effect,
if you consider the 2.1 API to be the set of non-deprecated functions
supported by python 2.1, or similar.

Having Python 2.1 look in /usr/lib/python2.[01] and Provide:
python-api-2.0, python-api-2.1 might adequately express this, and ease
upgrade problems.

 That's right.  Packaged modules must be updated when a new version of
 Python is installed.

It would be a shame if the packaging system declared some combinations
of packages broken, even though in actual fact they would/could work fine.

It'll be more of a shame is python is a continual source of problems as
far as porting (oh no! everything python related must be rebuilt right
now!) or the unstable-testing process is concerned.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

 ``Freedom itself was attacked this morning by faceless cowards.
 And freedom will be defended.''   Condolences to all involved.


pgpupj2aUkgOZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [Draft] Debian Python Policy 0.2

2001-10-10 Thread Gordon Tyler 
 The point is probably moot anyhow since I've almost finished creating
 packages using the scheme proposed by Donavon and others.  I need to
 update the policy and doing some more testing yet though.

That's good news. I'm itching to try out some of the new features. Would I
be able to assist in testing your packages?

Ciao,
Gordon

Re: [Draft] Debian Python Policy 0.2

2001-09-30 Thread Neil Schemenauer 
Donovan Baarda wrote:
 Hmmm, but if only python can provide python-api-*, then any packages that
 depend on python-api-X.Y will be broken when a new version of python
 providing python-api-X.Z comes out, and no python-X.Y package can be
 compatible with it.

That's right.  Packaged modules must be updated when a new version of
Python is installed.

  Neil