On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 10:04:26PM -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote: > On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 09:17:24PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Decorate only the shared library names with the python versions, and retain > > the current names for the .a files and .so symlinks - with two separate -dev > > packages that conflict with one another? > > That still prevents anyone from packaging an extension that builds for both > > python2.4 and python2.5 at once using Boost.Python, but I think it solves > > all the other drawbacks of the other solutions you suggested. > Indeed. Do you think this is a serious restriction? Given that > Debian likes to package extensions for all python versions, I tend to > think it will become a problem. I think it's a tolerable restriction. Clearly there are no packages using Boost.Python today to build for more than one version of python, so it's of course not a regression in any case; and we don't *need* all python extensions to be built for all python versions, it just makes transitions easier the more there are. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]