From: Steve M. Robbins (steve_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-02-27 01:22:12
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 11:15:24PM -0500, Stefan Seefeld wrote:
> Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> > Hi,
> > Thanks to Steve, Bernd, and Josselin for ideas.
> > On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 09:17:24PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >> Decorate only the shared library names with the python versions, and retain
> >> the current names for the .a files and .so symlinks - with two separate -dev
> >> packages that conflict with one another?
> >> That still prevents anyone from packaging an extension that builds for both
> >> python2.4 and python2.5 at once using Boost.Python, but I think it solves
> >> all the other drawbacks of the other solutions you suggested.
> > Indeed. Do you think this is a serious restriction? Given that
> > Debian likes to package extensions for all python versions, I tend to
> > think it will become a problem.
> extensions for different python installations don't conflict because
> they end up in separate directories.
The proposal above is that we provide a boost-python-2.4-dev and a
boost-python-2.5-dev package that conflict with one another (because
they would contain files of the same name). This prevents a source
package from depending on both for a build, and therefore a source
package for a Python extension cannot produce an extension for each
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk