Please don't Cc me. I am on the list. On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 23:05 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > Joe Wreschnig writes: > > On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 09:33 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > > [ Please don't keep the BTS cced if you reply unless you want to express a > > > concern about the dh_python implementation suggested by the bug ] > > > > > > Hello everybody, > > > > > > Matthias has been working on integrating python-central support in > > > dh_python and submitted #370833: > > > > > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=370833 > > > > > > This dh_python will use python-central for any binary package with a > > > XB-Python-Version: field. There's no optional python-support either. > > > > > > So anyone unhappy with python-central should really come up with another > > > dh_python implementation RSN. > > > > Previously we rolled back Joss's patch because Matthias didn't like it, > > no, not because I didn't like it, because it didn't work.
It did work, it just didn't work like you wanted it to. python-support works. There are packages in the archive using it to support multiple Python versions and remove upper dependency bounds. > > Since then, a new policy -- from Matthias -- has made that patch > > invalid. It's unfair (at best) to demand someone write a replacement > > Real Soon Now, when this *is* a replacement, and not soon at all, and > > pycentral got a head start because it designed the new policy. > > If you start speaking about fairness, please consider that > python-support was uploaded to unstable without any discussion, with > dh_python forcing python-support for every rebuild of a package. I did consider that. We rolled back Joss's patch. Why should yours get special treatment? > In > #370833 Joss claims that "it was decided at debconf to use > python-support for python modules". That's plain wrong. I do not > understand why somebody tries to make a point by telling nonsense. I've heard some degree of conflicting claims from everyone who was at the BoF. Many packages are *already* using python-support for Python modules. So in that sense, it was decided long before the BoF to use python-support. > I didn't see any updates for python-support in the past months, Then you're blind or stupid. python-support 0.2 was uploaded on April 26th, 2006, and contained many changes requested by the RMs and maintainers. Joss made two maintenance uploads during May. It is being used by many Python packages already in unstable. It's not complete, and it's certainly not up-to-date with the specifications *you* want. But Joss is actively developing it, and to claim otherwise is incredibly disingenuous. > Joss refused to change python-support, Joss refused to change python-support to work like you wanted it to. > therefore I did move on with > python-central, which is now in unstable as well. "He started it!" Sorry, that argument doesn't work. Just because Joss rushed ahead with python-support in a way you didn't like doesn't mean you get to rush ahead with python-central (and python itself) in a way that several participants of this list have stated they don't like. -- Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
