"Maciej (Matchek) Bliziński" <[email protected]> writes: > +PYTHON_MODULE_PACKAGE_PREFIX_2_6 = CSWpy- > +PYTHON_MODULE_PACKAGE_PREFIX_2_7 = CSWpy27- > +PYTHON_MODULE_PACKAGE_PREFIX_3_3 = CSWpy33- > +PYTHON_MODULE_PACKAGE_PREFIX = > $(PYTHON_MODULE_PACKAGE_PREFIX_$(PYTHON_VERSION))
I think that using a different prefix for 2.6 and 2.7 is not a good idea: it will hinder the replacement of the current Python, 2.6, by the new one, 2.7. Lets use the same prefix for 2.x to smooth the transition. IMHO the objective is to make 2.7 the current 2.x Python. We don't want to support a CSWpy-foo and CSWpy27-foo, isn't it? What's the rationale of that? Anyhow, I don't get what's the issue with a 2.6 package using the 2.7 interpreter. The only one that I see is if there is a binary component tightly linked to a give version. Which are those "binary" packages anyway? Using a different prefix for 3.x is a good thing. -- Peter _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
