"Maciej (Matchek) Bliziński" <[email protected]> writes: > 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.
Completely agree as the target is to have 2.7 as the next 2.x stable Python interpreter, when we will transition from the next unstable to a named catalog. > I'm curious if anyone will object to my idea to drop the dependency on > the interpreter. I'm rather opposed to it as it transgress the fundamental property of explicit dependency declaration. This can also create havoc, especially if a 2.7 module is tried on a 2.6 only installation. -- Peter _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
