Re: Packaging, supporting both 2.1 and 2.2

2002-05-24 Thread Bastian Kleineidam
Hi, On Fri, May 24, 2002 at 10:26:41AM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote: For those that _really_ want to run foo with python2.2, they can run 'foo-python2.2' instead. I think using 'alternatives' is overkill for this reason, and the symlink is a good idea. 'python2.2 /usr/bin/foo' would work too.

Re: Packaging, supporting both 2.1 and 2.2

2002-05-23 Thread Moshe Zadka
On Thu, 23 May 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Baarda) wrote: if I understand it, foo is not really a 'binary' but an 'executable script'... (which means it can be Python version independant). Yep. This situation is identical to the existing idle package. It's worth looking at how it

Re: Packaging, supporting both 2.1 and 2.2

2002-05-23 Thread Ricardo Javier Cardenes Medina
On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 04:34:18AM -, Moshe Zadka wrote: 1a) as 1), but also provide foo symlink for python (default). this makes senseI can just put the symlink in python2.1-foo-bin and move the symlinks when a python default change. Or you can use the update-alternatives tool we

Re: Packaging, supporting both 2.1 and 2.2

2002-05-23 Thread Donovan Baarda
On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 04:34:18AM -, Moshe Zadka wrote: On Thu, 23 May 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Baarda) wrote: [...] This situation is identical to the existing idle package. It's worth looking at how it handles it. I'll take a look, thanks. Note the naming convention

Re: Packaging, supporting both 2.1 and 2.2

2002-05-22 Thread Matthias Klose
Moshe Zadka writes: On Wed, 22 May 2002, Bastian Kleineidam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 12:09:11PM -, Moshe Zadka wrote: a) python2.1-foo: python foo.py module for 2.1 Depends: python2.1 b) python2.2-foo: python foo.py module for 2.2 Depends: python2.2

Re: Packaging, supporting both 2.1 and 2.2

2002-05-22 Thread Moshe Zadka
On Wed, 22 May 2002, Matthias Klose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: c) python-foo: /usr/bin/foo binary with #!/usr/bin/python Depends: python2.1-foo | python2.2-foo ^ that's an or sign, right python2.1, python2.2, python2.2-foo and python-foo are

Re: Packaging, supporting both 2.1 and 2.2

2002-05-22 Thread Bastian Kleineidam
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 01:09:02PM -, Moshe Zadka wrote: Situation: python2.1, python2.2, python2.2-foo and python-foo are all installed. python2.1 is the default. All dependancies are resolved, right? #!/usr/bin/python import foo equivalent to #!/usr/bin/python2.1 import foo

Re: Packaging, supporting both 2.1 and 2.2

2002-05-22 Thread Donovan Baarda
On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 10:10:51AM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote: [...] 1a) as 1), but also provide foo symlink for python (default). as 1), but also make foo (Depends: python (=2.1), python (2.2), foo-python2.1) with symlink /usr/bin/foo to /usr/bin/foo-python2.2 Ack! typo... should be