zope, zope-popyda, psycopg and python1.5-{,egenix-}mxdatetime
Federico Di Gregorio
> Thinking about fog's reply:
>
> was there an earlier python-egenix-mxdatetime compiled for 1.5?
>
> I have
> Package: python-egenix-mxdatetime
> Version: 2.0.2-5
> Depends: python (>= 2.1), python (<< 2.2), python2.1-egenix-mxdatetime
>
> which is certainly not going to be compatible (or even findable) by
> a zope1.5 extension.
>
> I wonder if we have gotten lucky because people who needed python-psyco
> (now python1.5-psyco) are pinned by some other dependency so that
> their python-egenix-mxdatetime has not been replaced?
no. it was my fault. my devel machine has a strange combination of
packages satisfying the dpendencies and an old mxdatetime 2.0.2 compiled
by myself in /usr/lib/python1.5/site-packages making the
python1.5-psycopg package working. the package now in debian is b0rken.
sic.
> Postscript: fog, does that mean that you intend to continue to maintain
> python1.5-psycopg for a while?
at least until python1.5 exits from debian.
--
Federico Di Gregorio
Debian GNU/Linux Developer & Italian Press Contact f...@debian.org
INIT.D Developer f...@initd.org
Don't dream it. Be it. -- Dr. Frank'n'further
Joel Rosdahl
> On Tue, 2001-11-20 at 21:24, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> > Joel Rosdahl <jo...@debian.org> writes:
> >
> > > Sounds like you guys could use a python1.5 version of
> > > mxdatetime, then...
>
> the ones without egenix in the name? too old.
I was vague on purpose since I didn't know if the 1.3.0 or 2.0.2
version was needed.
> > > I'm willing to maintain such a package, but the best solution is
> > > maybe that one of you creates a separate python1.5 mxdatetime
> > > package as you like and also maintains it?
>
> i can maintain the egenix stuff if you like (after all i wrote the
> original patches to build egenix 2.0.2) but splitting the package
> is, imo, a bad thing. it should be maintaned by a signle developer
> (doesn't matter who.)
Yes, since it's the new version we're talking about, I too think it's
better not to split the package. But there was some talk on this list
about that it would be better to use different source packages in some
cases. For example, in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2001/debian-python-200110/msg00140.html
Mathias writes:
| > Have all these packages to be built with the same source?
|
| No. Although it avoids source code duplication, it makes it more
| difficult to remove an older version. My proposal would be to build
| 1.5 and 2.0 packages from one source and 2.1 and 2.2 packages from
| another source package, so the first source package and binary
| packages can easily be removed.
In
http://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2001/debian-python-200110/msg00142.html
I asked why it would be better to do it this way instead of just
uploading (when 1.5 is obsolete) a new version of the source package
that simply doesn't include the obsolete binary packages. But now
when I read his answer in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2001/debian-python-200110/msg00143.html
I think he maybe misunderstood me.
Care to elaborate, Mathias?
Anyway, do you think I should
1. build python1.5 versions of all egenix mx packages (easier and more
consequent, but also bloatier), or
2. build just a python1.5-egenix-mxdatetime?
Regards,
Joel
--
Joel Rosdahl <jo...@debian.org> (PGP and GPG keys available)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-pyt...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org