Bug#401896: Accepted pygtk 2.8.6-7 (source i386 all)

[Loïc Minier]

On Thu, Dec 07, 2006, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> The python policy implies that if you want to build something against
> the non-default python version, you need python-foo and python2.X-dev.
> Which means in this case, a python-dev dependency should be enough. This
> would avoid pulling several interpreter versions when not needed.

 Yes, so if someone wants to build against the non-default python
 version, python2.X-dev will be pulled by his build-deps and, with your
 proposal python-dev will be pulled by python-gtk2-dev as well, even if
 it's not required.  So I had the choice between:
1) depending on python-all-dev, always pulling too much, but also
   protecting against missing build-deps and being generally a safe bet
   which puts load on buildd (but so close to the release, I prefer
   playing safely)
2) depending on python-dev, pulling too much when building against a
   non-default python version, and not pulling the correct python-dev
   package for the corresponding Python.h

 IMO, none of the above is correct; as I stated, we should depend on
 python-dev | virtual-provide-satisfied-by-all-python2.X-dev to ensure
 that someone pulls some python2.X-dev or that we pull python-dev.

 You prefer 2), I picked up 1) as a safe bet.

 I ultimately prefer 3) (virtual provide), but I'm fine with 2):
    "I think python-dev is ok as well."


 BTW, you assert a Python package building against python-gobject, but
 there's also the far-fetched possibility of a C program using
 pygobject.h directly, or simply an user / admin building stuff locally,
 without complying to the Python policy.


 Anyway, I don't care, swap 1) for 2) if you like, just pick one as not
 having anything is probably a RC bug.

-- 
Loïc Minier <lool at dooz.org>
 "I have no strong feelings one way or the other." -- Neutral President