2013/8/1 Maciej (Matchek) Bliziński <[email protected]> > 2013/7/31 Dagobert Michelsen <[email protected]> > > I followed the discussion on cross-version modules and the more I think > about it > > the more I think it would be better to clearly separate modules for > different > > Python versions. If you already built them with modulations I don't see > the > > point in putting them all in one package instead of having the old (2.6) > > CSWpy- and the new CSWpy27- and CSWpy33- modules. The only possible > benefit > > I see is that people who are using 2.6 can pkgutil update and switch to > 2.7 > > after all has been rebuilt. But that can be achieved with a online > shellscript > > installing CSWpy27- for all CSWpy- modules. > > One argument for keeping the CSWpy- prefix is that we start with one > 2.x version (2.6) and we eventually want to end up with one 2.x > version (2.7). When we go from 2.6 to 2.7, we can introduce the > CSWpy27- packages, but there eventually would only be CSWpy27- > packages and none of CSWpy-. I think that would be just annoyance for > our users. If we can wiggle our way through from 2.6 into 2.7 without > messing around with package names, it's better and smoother for our > users. >
I don't see this as a major annoyance. After all, users have to clean the obsolete packages on their system, that is not something that is done automatically when a package is dropped from the opencsw catalog. One advantage for having a different prefix is that it will allow users to keep their obsolete 2.6 python module on their system if they want to, whereas if we have only one package CSWpy-, the day we decide to stop shipping python 2.6, they will suddenly disappear. This is not something we officially support, but I think this is nice for users to know that once they installed or compiled something relying on a opencsw library/module, they can be nearly sure it will work as long as they don't remove the package. I personnally also like consistency. I didn't understand clearly how python 3 modules will be handled. Will they all have a CSWpy33- prefix ? Will we have the same kind of problem during upgrade or is the situation different with python 3 ? > I'm curious if anyone will object to my idea to drop the dependency on > the interpreter. > The implicit contract is that when you pkgutil -i something, everything will be installed so that it will work properly. That being said, I don't think this is as big problem because: - if a user manually installs a module, he is supposed to know that a python module needs python and have probably already installed python, - if a python program need a python module, he also needs for itself the python interpreter so there is no dependency problem. I think this would be a compromise considering the fact that we don't have a dependency system with virtual dependency (where we can say that a package depends on any python interpreter < 3 and >= 2.6) Yann > > Maciej > _______________________________________________ > maintainers mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers > .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::. >
_______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
