2013/8/2 Peter FELECAN <[email protected]>: > Oh, I'm so sorry, I just read the reverse of what you mean. Indeed, we > agreed on that. Sorry again., maybe I should restrain when the > temperature is more than 32 Celsius.
It can be confusing, I know! We have a 90 message long thread and we're agreeing! ;-) Tu sum up: Peter and I have a rough consensus how to go forward. Dagobert doesn't like the 2.6+2.7 packages idea. Yann would prefer the CSWpy27- prefix. One undecided thing is if it's okay for the Python modules to drop the dependency on the interpreter(s). I see how the 2.6+2.7 packages are ugly but I think they're a decent pragmatic choice. It's true that the upgrade can be done with a small shell script on each system, but requiring all users to run this makes our package catalog harder to use, and I'm sure we would be getting emails from people having problems. If we ship the dual packages, things will just work. Maciej _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
