Bug#411657: Transition from sarge-etch for zope packages

[Fabio Tranchitella]

Hi Steve,
first of all, thanks for your reply.

* 2007-02-21 21:10, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I think that changing the dependency on zope-common to something like:
> > Depends: python (>= 2.4) | python2.4, ...
> > would do the trick,
> 
> No, this would definitely be wrong.  The package either uses
> /usr/bin/python2.4 as an interpreter or it uses /usr/bin/python -- whichever
> one it uses is the package it should be depending on.

In this case, I would switch back to python2.4 instead of python (>= 2.4)
to provide a smooth upgrade path.

> Using /usr/bin/python and depending on python (>= 2.4) has the advantage
> that the package will be automatically compatible with future versions of
> python, introducing the possibility of a smoother upgrade for etch->lenny.
> This shouldn't be considered to outweigh having a smooth upgrade for
> sarge->etch though; OTOH, I also don't see why it's important to avoid
> removal of zope2.7 on upgrade, it /is/ an obsolete package from the etch
> perspective.

FWIW, I have customers still running zope (= 2.6) in production. Having
both an old version of zope and the new one allows smooth migration, and it
is a must-have for a solid distribution like Debian is.

At this point, I just would like to know what Matthias think about it
before reverting his change.

Cheers,

-- 
Fabio Tranchitella                         http://www.kobold.it
Free Software Developer and Consultant     http://www.tranchitella.it
_____________________________________________________________________
1024D/7F961564, fpr 5465 6E69 E559 6466 BF3D 9F01 2BF8 EE2B 7F96 1564
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-zope-developers/attachments/20070221/0030bc24/attachment.pgp