Re: Using Optware Python packages with Python 2.5
- Taking into account the fact that having seperate packages is
easier, that it's also the way Debian does it and that it allows an
easier dependency management (py24-<foo> is dependent on python24,
py25-<foo> is dependent on python25) I would suggest to go this
route. Having to build for both versions in one package is not
really clean either so if there is no clean solution we might as
well take the easy one...
--- In email@example.com, "Brian Zhou" <b88zhou@...>
> Good question. I've been thinking about this for a while and don't
> have a good answer.
> The problem is that during build time, we don't know whether
> or python25 is going to be used. We know at the most which pythonis
> currently the default.the
> So for any py-<foo> package, we either build for both versions and
> package it in a single py-<foo>, or have a separate py24-<foo> and
> py25-<foo>. The latter is how debian does it.
> I don't know which way people prefer: fat py-<foo> or double the
> number of python packages? From developer's point of view, double
> number of python packages is easier.instead of
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "ptnemot" <groups@> wrote:
> > I have recently started using Python 2.5 on my WL500g box
> > Python 2.4 (for reasons I won't detail out here). Now pythonitself
> > works fine, the Optware packages for Python packages are howeverPython
> > based on Python 2.4 and therefore will not correctly work with
> > 2.5 (e.g. the path to site-packages is not correct). Thepackages I
> > am using specifically are py-cheetah and py-cherrypy, but Iassume
> > the same is valid for other packages also.however I
> > Now I still have gotten the packages to work by downloading the
> > source and issuing "setup.py install" on my router itself,
> > would prefer to install these packages through the standardOptware
> > package feed. So my question is how could we get these packagesto
> > work also with python 2.5 (while maintaining compatibility withv2.4)?
> > One though would be to adjust the current .mk files to ensure
> > correct paths are used, but I'm not sure how in the .mk file wecould
> > decide whether to use the 2.4/2.5/... paths. Another optionwould be
> > to have different ipkg packages for the different versions (e.g.py25-
> > cherrypy) but this off course isn't really a clean way of doing
> > things.
> > Any help would be appreciated!