Yann Rouillard <[email protected]> writes: > 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 ?
What people need to understand is that a 2.6 non binary module can be run by a 2.7 interpreter. The reverse is not always true. This is why I proposed to replace 2.6 by 2.7 in our next transition from unstable to a named catalog. This is not to be confused with the major incompatibilities between 2.x and 3.x where using a different prefix is required. -- Peter _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
