Hi,
I don't know if it was already discussed.
If a (little) different approach is taken, such a (x)emacs or drscheme do.
In installing time, the install script detect which version are installed (I.e.
emacs and/or xemacs) and then compile the source for each version.
So, it's possible to
Antal A. Buss wrote:
So, it's possible to install new modules to default, legacy and new version
of Python, maintained only one package, using package dependency to know
which Python version check.
Specific modules are installed without check installed version
This is a good idea, if
-
Le mardi 18 octobre 2005 à 02:57 +0200, Martin v. Löwis a écrit :
Josselin Mouette wrote:
Apart from a typo and the FSF address, the changes are about which
packaging variants are mandated, recommending to provide only one
python-foo package for each module, except when depending
To what cost? How many gigabytes of mirror space and bandwidth are we
wasting with python2.X-libprout stuff nobody ever uses?
I don't know. What is the answer to this question? I wouldn't expect
it to be more than 1GiB per mirror, though, likely much less. On
i386, for example, the useless
Le mardi 18 octobre 2005 à 10:24 +0200, Martin v. Löwis a écrit :
Even in a situation like the current one, when we're stuck with 2.3 as
the default when there's 2.4 available, there are only a few python
packages which actually need the 2.4 version.
What do you mean, actually need?
On Tue, 2005-10-18 at 08:23, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mardi 18 octobre 2005 à 02:57 +0200, Martin v. Löwis a écrit :
Josselin Mouette wrote:
[...]
But I'm not talking about python-gtk here, I'm talking about those
hundreds of modules actually used by zero or one binary packages. Do we
need
Josselin Mouette wrote:
Apart from a typo and the FSF address, the changes are about which
packaging variants are mandated, recommending to provide only one
python-foo package for each module, except when depending applications
mandate another python version.
This way, we could enforce that
On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 20:23, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le lundi 10 octobre 2005 à 17:01 +0100, Donovan Baarda a écrit :
In 2.2.2, I would remove the only from only supports python versions
different from the currrent default one... You can use this for
packages that support the current
On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 20:29, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le lundi 10 octobre 2005 à 17:14 +0100, Donovan Baarda a écrit :
The best person to decide what packages need to support which old
versions of python are the package maintainers. They know this based on
the requests and bug reports from
Le lundi 10 octobre 2005 à 17:01 +0100, Donovan Baarda a écrit :
In 2.2.2, I would remove the only from only supports python versions
different from the currrent default one... You can use this for
packages that support the current default one as well as other versions.
The next section deals
On Sun, 2005-10-09 at 13:36, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le dimanche 09 octobre 2005 à 14:30 +0200, Matthias Klose a écrit :
[...]
I don't like the idea that maintainers of depending
applications have to fight with maintainers of library packages,
which versions they should provide.
Maybe we
Josselin Mouette writes:
Apart from a typo and the FSF address, the changes are about which
packaging variants are mandated, recommending to provide only one
python-foo package for each module, except when depending applications
mandate another python version.
This way, we could enforce
12 matches
Mail list logo
