2013/8/1 Yann Rouillard <[email protected]>: > Thanks to having renamed libraries package based on their soname, that's > something that is possible for libraries and I personnally think it's a good > thing. > For example, if someone compiled a binary against libssl0.9.8, they will not > be forced to stick to an old catalog just because of that binary (a binary > that might not even be recompiled against libssl1.0.0). > They will be able to move on to a more recent catalog while keeping the > obsolete libssl0.9.8 package installed. > > I would think we could apply the same logic to python packages.
Yes, that's an option. For every CSWpy- package we would now create CSWpy26- and CSWpy27- package, and the old CSWpy- would become a stub, pulling in the other two. I'm guessing Peter would object to that on the basis of catalog churn. I can grant that it would be on some level transparent and clean. We just need to decide which way we're going. I was thinking that not splitting each Python package into three would be a path of less resistance. I'll move the Python 3 discussion to a separate thread. Maciej _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
