On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 10:03:15AM +0530, Ganesan Rajagopal wrote: > >>>>> Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > In short, the main decision has been to drop entirely python2.x-foo > > packages. They will, however, be provided as virtual packages, but only > > if something actually needs them. > > ... > > For C extensions, it was decided to build them for all available python > > versions in a single python-foo package. For example, currently we have > > python2.3 and python2.4. The package would > > contain /usr/lib/python2.[34]/site-packages/foo.so and depend on > > "python (>= 2.3), python (<< 2.5)". The python-all-dev package will be > > used to build this. > Hmm, seems a bit backward to me. What if I don't have python2.3 installed at > all. What's the point in keeping /usr/lib/python2.3/site-packages/foo.so > around? Nothing in policy will require that you do this. We discussed specifically in the BoF whether it was appropriate to allow building binary modules only for the current version of python, and the agreement was that yes, this was appropriate and support will be implemented. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/