"Maciej (Matchek) Bliziński" <[email protected]> writes: > 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).
Yes. We agree. A lot of steps were made forward. Thank you. > 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. I thought about a script to re-package all the current modules and not a script that the user need to run. Their upgrade will be made by natural way, i.e. pkgutil --upgrade. Maybe there are corner cases but don't forget that the big bang will take place only when we transition our unstable. -- Peter _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
