On Wed, Aug 02, 2006, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > that could have been more clear, but I do have such tools to follow the > transition, I use[1]. The two rounds of mass bug have been package that > build public modules and extensions, and then all the other ones (+ > some missed one at the first stage).
Ok, some things I consider bugs with the current state of the transition and I would have expected in a "Status of the Python transition" page: - way of expressing dependencies on a particular version of python modules (#379455) - support of rtupdate scripts - support of pure python2.3 modules (raised on debian-python@ last week) - reports of upgrade testing > this seems to be quite well documented on the DebianPython/NewPolicy > pages, buxy added some full examples, and I added some more things > about cdbs recenlty. The page was also updated for private modules > before the second mass bug fill. An example of what I would have expected to find on the page I describe is: what to do when your package ships both private extensions and private modules; solution a) could be to configure the package with a --libexecdir or similar containing the name of the python runtime and build it multiple times, solution b) could be to only build for one version of python. -- Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]