Re: python 2.2 -> python 2.3 transition

[David Weinehall]

On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 01:37:10PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:34:12PM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> > On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 15:49, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 11:44:22PM -0400, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
> > > > The negative effect for the users is that you can't upgrade python
> > > > while wxgtk-python is installed so you can't try out the
> > > > latest-and-greatest python in the meantime.  This is the issue at
> > > > hand.
> > > Sure you can:
> > >   $ sudo apt-get install python2.3
> > > The dependency stuff merely notes that upgrading python without also
> > > upgrading wxgtk-python may break stuff.
> > actually, if the dependencies are right, you cannot upgrade to python
> > (2.3) without also upgrading to wxgtk-python (2.3) or de-installing
> > wxgtk-python (2.2).
> 
> Sure you can. dpkg --force-depends -i python_*.deb will do it for you.
> 
> If you want something bad enough, and don't mind breaking things, anything's
> possible.

Please, don't turn Debian into Red Hat ;-)


Regards: David Weinehall
-- 
 /) David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> /) Northern lights wander  (\
//  Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel   //  Dance across the winter sky //
\)  http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/(/   Full colour fire   (/

Re: python 2.2 -> python 2.3 transition

[Anthony Towns]

On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:34:12PM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 15:49, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 11:44:22PM -0400, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
> > > The negative effect for the users is that you can't upgrade python
> > > while wxgtk-python is installed so you can't try out the
> > > latest-and-greatest python in the meantime.  This is the issue at
> > > hand.
> > Sure you can:
> > $ sudo apt-get install python2.3
> > The dependency stuff merely notes that upgrading python without also
> > upgrading wxgtk-python may break stuff.
> actually, if the dependencies are right, you cannot upgrade to python
> (2.3) without also upgrading to wxgtk-python (2.3) or de-installing
> wxgtk-python (2.2).

Sure you can. dpkg --force-depends -i python_*.deb will do it for you.

If you want something bad enough, and don't mind breaking things, anything's
possible.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

   ``Is this some kind of psych test?
  Am I getting paid for this?''


pgphsIYHZSBPS.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: python 2.2 -> python 2.3 transition

[Donovan Baarda]

On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 15:49, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 11:44:22PM -0400, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
> > The negative effect for the users is that you can't upgrade python
> > while wxgtk-python is installed so you can't try out the
> > latest-and-greatest python in the meantime.  This is the issue at
> > hand.
> 
> Sure you can:
> 
>   $ sudo apt-get install python2.3
> 
> The dependency stuff merely notes that upgrading python without also
> upgrading wxgtk-python may break stuff.

actually, if the dependencies are right, you cannot upgrade to python
(2.3) without also upgrading to wxgtk-python (2.3) or de-installing
wxgtk-python (2.2).

There is a difference between "break stuff" and "not installable" :-)

When the dependencies are right, you can't "break stuff", because a
broken combination is "not installable".

if you can then the dependencies are wrong and you should file a
bug-report.

-- 
Donovan Baarda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: python 2.2 -> python 2.3 transition

[Anthony Towns]

On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 11:44:22PM -0400, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
> The negative effect for the users is that you can't upgrade python
> while wxgtk-python is installed so you can't try out the
> latest-and-greatest python in the meantime.  This is the issue at
> hand.

Sure you can:

$ sudo apt-get install python2.3

The dependency stuff merely notes that upgrading python without also
upgrading wxgtk-python may break stuff.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

   ``Is this some kind of psych test?
  Am I getting paid for this?''


pgpNhNMM7ahSe.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: python 2.2 -> python 2.3 transition

[Derrick 'dman' Hudson]

On Sun, Aug 17, 2003 at 11:22:43AM +0200, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
| On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 08:33:26AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
| > Now, I could do the dependency on python (>= 2.2), python (<<2.3) thing. 
| > But what would that gain me or users?  I see no benefit there, other than
| > people tracking sid would find OfflineIMAP uninstallable until it gets
| > updated to depend on Python 2.3.
| > 
| > There are plenty of OfflineIMAP users that don't use Python themselves,
| > don't care that it's written in Python -- and probably some that don't
| > *know* it's written in Python.
| > 
| > (And yes, the bang path explicitly calls python2.2)

If the program explicitly calls python2.2, then it should depend on
python2.2, not python (2.2).

The usefulness of depending on the default python is (IMO) geared for
libraries.  wxPython is just one example.  This allows an admin to
install the library for the default python and not have to worry about
package name changes when the default python changes.  (IMO the
libraries _should_ also provide versions for the other currently
available python versions, if possible/feasible)

| The dependency on python (>= 2.2), python (<< 2.3) is for the case where 
| you have a module which loads into python and supports only a single
| python version. 
| 
| After python changed you can't install that package (wxgtk-python or
| whatever) anymore. The positive effect for the users is that you can't
| upgrade python while wxgtk-python is installed so your system won't
| break.

The negative effect for the users is that you can't upgrade python
while wxgtk-python is installed so you can't try out the
latest-and-greatest python in the meantime.  This is the issue at
hand.

-D

-- 
For society, it's probably a good thing that engineers value function
over appearance.  For example, you wouldn't want engineers to build
nuclear power plants that only _look_ like they would keep all the
radiation inside.
(Scott Adams - The Dilbert principle)
 
http://dman13.dyndns.org/~dman/


pgpiUSHgB0y5j.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: python 2.2 -> python 2.3 transition

[Hamish Moffatt]

On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 11:47:48AM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> There is an alternative... only support one version of python... and be
> stuck at python 2.1 until everything uses it, or lose things like zope
> etc.

Alternatively the python developers could try to keep backwards
compatibility :-|


Hamish
-- 
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: python 2.2 -> python 2.3 transition

[Colin Watson]

On Sat, Aug 09, 2003 at 02:04:52AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Joey Hess writes:
> > Josip Rodin wrote:
> > > Am I the only one who has a disgusting reminiscence of netscape*.* 
> > > packages
> > > every time python* is mentioned? :P
> > 
> > Actually I'm more reminded of the perl* packages and the complete mess
> > that followed. And I keep expecting to see the same set of problems
> > affect python.
> 
> I'd like to see a way how to ease transitions between major version of
> "basic" packages. It is an problem, if accumulated transitions
> prohibit the migration of packages to testing. libgdbm recently broke
> the migrations,

Actually, gdbm was pretty easy. The only packages that had problems were
ones that depended on libgdbmg1-dev, and the reason that that took a
while to resolve was not because of gdbm but because openldap2 was
having problems at the time. I'd say it was a well-handled transition.

-- 
Colin Watson  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: python 2.2 -> python 2.3 transition

[Matthias Klose]

Joey Hess writes:
> Josip Rodin wrote:
> > Am I the only one who has a disgusting reminiscence of netscape*.* packages
> > every time python* is mentioned? :P
> 
> Actually I'm more reminded of the perl* packages and the complete mess
> that followed. And I keep expecting to see the same set of problems
> affect python.

I'd like to see a way how to ease transitions between major version of
"basic" packages. It is an problem, if accumulated transitions
prohibit the migration of packages to testing. libgdbm recently broke
the migrations, glibc-2.3.1 broke the transition for about half a
year.

maybe it's time to define a set of "basic" packages on which a Debian
release is based on and then rebuild a new release on this
"basic-sid-or-whatever" release.

Matthias

Re: python 2.2 -> python 2.3 transition

[Joey Hess]

Josip Rodin wrote:
> Am I the only one who has a disgusting reminiscence of netscape*.* packages
> every time python* is mentioned? :P

Actually I'm more reminded of the perl* packages and the complete mess
that followed. And I keep expecting to see the same set of problems
affect python.

-- 
see shy jo


pgpgVyFuVW0l1.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: python 2.2 -> python 2.3 transition

[Domenico Andreoli]

i agree, we have a great support for Python.

thanks to those who make it possible.

cavok


On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 11:47:48AM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
...
>
> Personally I was going to post "nice job everyone... the Python Policy
> looks like it is working". There are still a few niggly things, but if
> Debian can go to Python 2.3 within days of it being released without
> breaking anything else, I'd say thats pretty damn impressive.
> 
...

-[ Domenico Andreoli, aka cavok
 --[ http://filibusta.crema.unimi.it/~cavok/gpgkey.asc
   ---[ 3A0F 2F80 F79C 678A 8936  4FEE 0677 9033 A20E BC50

Re: python 2.2 -> python 2.3 transition

[Donovan Baarda]

On Thu, 2003-08-07 at 02:17, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 09:33:26AM -0500, Chad Walstrom wrote:
> > > > Am I the only one who has a disgusting reminiscence of netscape*.*
> > > > packages every time python* is mentioned? :P
> > 
> > > hmmm.. just curious... why?
> > 
> > The short of it: he's joking.  Note the smiley.  Even though package
> > names that have version numbers tends to bloat the archive, but there
> > really isn't a more graceful way for allowing two versions of the
> > software to exist on a system at the same time.  Josip knows this, hence
> > the smiley.
> 
> Yes. It's also a smiley with the tongue out, meaning I'm actually saddened
> by the end-result of the situation and resort to joking out of sheer
> desperation.

There is an alternative... only support one version of python... and be
stuck at python 2.1 until everything uses it, or lose things like zope
etc.

Personally I was going to post "nice job everyone... the Python Policy
looks like it is working". There are still a few niggly things, but if
Debian can go to Python 2.3 within days of it being released without
breaking anything else, I'd say thats pretty damn impressive.

I'd be curious to know how other distro's are/will handle the
transition.

-- 
Donovan Baarda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: python 2.2 -> python 2.3 transition

[Josip Rodin]

On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 09:33:26AM -0500, Chad Walstrom wrote:
> > > Am I the only one who has a disgusting reminiscence of netscape*.*
> > > packages every time python* is mentioned? :P
> 
> > hmmm.. just curious... why?
> 
> The short of it: he's joking.  Note the smiley.  Even though package
> names that have version numbers tends to bloat the archive, but there
> really isn't a more graceful way for allowing two versions of the
> software to exist on a system at the same time.  Josip knows this, hence
> the smiley.

Yes. It's also a smiley with the tongue out, meaning I'm actually saddened
by the end-result of the situation and resort to joking out of sheer
desperation.

-- 
 2. That which causes joy or happiness.

Re: python 2.2 -> python 2.3 transition

[Chad Walstrom]

On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 11:18:53AM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> Am I the only one who has a disgusting reminiscence of netscape*.*
> packages every time python* is mentioned? :P

On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 02:59:00PM +0200, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
> hmmm.. just curious... why?

The short of it: he's joking.  Note the smiley.  Even though package
names that have version numbers tends to bloat the archive, but there
really isn't a more graceful way for allowing two versions of the
software to exist on a system at the same time.  Josip knows this, hence
the smiley.

-- 
Chad Walstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   http://www.wookimus.net/
   assert(expired(knowledge)); /* core dump */


pgpHqipr7YdXq.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: python 2.2 -> python 2.3 transition

[Domenico Andreoli]

hmmm.. just curious... why?

On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 11:18:53AM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 10:31:53PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > Last weekend, python 2.3 was released.
> > With the next python2.3 upload, python2.3 becomes the default python
> > version.
> 
> Am I the only one who has a disgusting reminiscence of netscape*.* packages
> every time python* is mentioned? :P
> 


-[ Domenico Andreoli, aka cavok
 --[ http://filibusta.crema.unimi.it/~cavok/gpgkey.asc
   ---[ 3A0F 2F80 F79C 678A 8936  4FEE 0677 9033 A20E BC50

Re: python 2.2 -> python 2.3 transition

[Josip Rodin]

On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 10:31:53PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Last weekend, python 2.3 was released.
> With the next python2.3 upload, python2.3 becomes the default python
> version.

Am I the only one who has a disgusting reminiscence of netscape*.* packages
every time python* is mentioned? :P

-- 
 2. That which causes joy or happiness.