From: Stefan Seefeld (seefeld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-02-27 08:43:43
Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 11:15:24PM -0500, Stefan Seefeld wrote:
>> Steve M. Robbins wrote:
>>> 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
> Python version.
How does this work for source packages using Python-dev directly ? Don't
they face the same problem ?
(I still don't see the problem: Source packages don't depend on binary
packages, only binary packages do. And if you package your extension
module you are in control of what python version(s) you build against, no ?)
-- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk