Re: Final draft of Python Policy (hopefully ;-)

2001-10-28 Thread Chris Lawrence
On Oct 27, Gregor Hoffleit wrote: I've put a version 0.3.6 of the Python Policy Draft on http://people.debian.org/~flight/python/. The version is still a little bit rough and sometimes incomplete, but it already gives a good outline of the Python packaging system we are installing just now.

Re: (2nd try) Final draft of Python Policy (hopefully ;-)

2001-10-28 Thread Jérôme Marant
Gregor Hoffleit [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I've put a version 0.3.6 of the Python Policy Draft on http://people.debian.org/~flight/python/. The version is still a little bit rough and sometimes incomplete, but it already gives a good outline of the Python packaging system we are installing

Re: (2nd try) Final draft of Python Policy (hopefully ;-)

2001-10-28 Thread Matthias Klose
Jérôme Marant writes: Gregor Hoffleit [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I've put a version 0.3.6 of the Python Policy Draft on http://people.debian.org/~flight/python/. The version is still a little bit rough and sometimes incomplete, but it already gives a good outline of the Python packaging

Re: (2nd try) Final draft of Python Policy (hopefully ;-)

2001-10-28 Thread Joel Rosdahl
Matthias Klose [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It let's a package depend on: python (= 2.1), python ( 2.2), python-foo and can expect a working default Python version, which has support for python-foo. You mean python, python-foo I presume? My proposal would be to build 1.5 and 2.0

Re: (2nd try) Final draft of Python Policy (hopefully ;-)

2001-10-28 Thread Matthias Klose
Joel Rosdahl writes: Matthias Klose [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It let's a package depend on: python (= 2.1), python ( 2.2), python-foo and can expect a working default Python version, which has support for python-foo. You mean python, python-foo I presume? You may

Re: Final draft of Python Policy (hopefully ;-)

2001-10-28 Thread Matthias Klose
Chris Lawrence writes: - I'm not sure in 2.1.2.2 that /usr/lib/python/site-packages is a good name... maybe /usr/share/python/site-packages instead. (After all, the things should be arch independent.) I'd be happy to code up the symlink thingamajig for 2.1.2.2 if nobody's working on it. See

Re: (2nd try) Final draft of Python Policy (hopefully ;-)

2001-10-28 Thread Jérôme Marant
Matthias Klose [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 2.1.1 Support Only The Default Version + does this Depends: python (= X.Y), python ( X.Y+1) really work since versioned provides do not exist yet? Isn't it python-base rather than python ? yes. python is a real package now. It is a

Re: (2nd try) Final draft of Python Policy (hopefully ;-)

2001-10-28 Thread Jérôme Marant
Gregor Hoffleit [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If nobody find fundamental show-stoppers that render this unusable, we're going to submit it to Debian Policy very soon. I think we could also add a section about how to use distutils to install things in the right place. My 2 eurocents,

Re: (2nd try) Final draft of Python Policy (hopefully ;-)

2001-10-28 Thread Matthias Klose
Jérôme Marant writes: Matthias Klose [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 2.1.1 Support Only The Default Version + does this Depends: python (= X.Y), python ( X.Y+1) really work since versioned provides do not exist yet? Isn't it python-base rather than python ? yes. python

Re: (2nd try) Final draft of Python Policy (hopefully ;-)

2001-10-28 Thread Carey Evans
From Appendix B.2: The new packages will conflict with every Python dependent package, that does depend on `python', `python-base', without depending on `python ( 1.6)' or `python-base ( 2.1)'. Since the new packages conflict with python-base itself, they don't need to

Re: (2nd try) Final draft of Python Policy (hopefully ;-)

2001-10-28 Thread Jérôme Marant
Matthias Klose [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It already exists: deb http://ftp-master.debian.org/~doko/python ./ So, it will exist soon. s/major//. Correct. Assume we release woody with python (2.1), and we But I don't want all my python packages to be uninstalled because

Re: (2nd try) Final draft of Python Policy (hopefully ;-)

2001-10-28 Thread Matthias Klose
Carey Evans writes: From Appendix B.2: The new packages will conflict with every Python dependent package, that does depend on `python', `python-base', without depending on `python ( 1.6)' or `python-base ( 2.1)'. Since the new packages conflict with python-base

Re: (2nd try) Final draft of Python Policy (hopefully ;-)

2001-10-28 Thread Matthias Klose
Jérôme Marant writes: Matthias Klose [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But I don't want all my python packages to be uninstalled because python changed. This is unacceptable. So you simply set the new python packages on hold, until all packages you need are converted. What's wrong with

Re: (2nd try) Final draft of Python Policy (hopefully ;-)

2001-10-28 Thread Donovan Baarda
On Sun, Oct 28, 2001 at 02:57:15PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote: Matthias Klose [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 2.1.1 Support Only The Default Version [...] + a new change to the major version of python, will make all packages depending on the default version being uninstalled, right?

Re: Final draft of Python Policy (hopefully ;-)

2001-10-28 Thread Donovan Baarda
G'day, Gregor's already answered most of these, but thought I'd throw in a comment or two. On Sun, Oct 28, 2001 at 12:11:04AM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote: On Oct 27, Gregor Hoffleit wrote: I've put a version 0.3.6 of the Python Policy Draft on http://people.debian.org/~flight/python/. The

Final draft of Python Policy (hopefully ;-)

2001-10-27 Thread Gregor Hoffleit
I've put a version 0.3.6 of the Python Policy Draft on http://people.debian.org/~flight/python/. The version is still a little bit rough and sometimes incomplete, but it already gives a good outline of the Python packaging system we are installing just now. Please have a look at the document, and