No dia 14 de Outubro de 2010 07:32, Dagobert Michelsen <[email protected]> escreveu: > Hi Maciej, > > Am 14.10.2010 um 08:21 schrieb Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski: >> >> Each Python version requires the rebuild of all the modules. Here's a >> sketch of what packages could be named like: >> >> CSWpython (symlink only) >> CSWpython-devel (one devel package pointing at the newest Python) >> CSWpython26 (specific version of the interpreter) >> CSWpython27 (specific version of the interpreter) >> CSWpython31 (specific version of the interpreter) >> CSWlibpython2_5_1_0 (libpython for 2.5) >> CSWlibpython2_6_1_0 (libpython for 2.6) >> CSWpy26-foo (Python module for 2.6) >> CSWpy27-foo (Python module for 2.7) >> CSWpy31-foo (Python module for 3.1) > > Just as a note: Perl is not much different here and we choose to not have > a version in all modules. However, that required us to atomically rebuild > all modules. Maybe it would be good to have a consistent strategy here?
If I have to choose between being consistent with how Perl is packaged and how Python is packaged, I'd go with the latter. I don't see any real benefits for choosing the "one Python" strategy. At the same time, I see serious downsides. For example, if you write any serious Python code, you write it for a specific version, and you lock it down to that Python version. You might migrate it later on to a newer version, but migration is a separate process. You quite often need Python 2.4 to run some scripts, and Python 2.6 to run others. I might point out that at some point in time I really wished OpenCSW provided CSWpython-2.4, because I had scripts that used it specifically. So, in short, you would need a really compelling argument to convince me that "one Python" is better. _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
