"Lite" vs. "Full" Python Ports

[Arthur Koziel]

On 13.04.2009, at 15:11, Rainer Müller wrote:

> Bryan Blackburn wrote:
>> It would be nice to move 2.4 and 2.5 (or at least 2.5) to the same  
>> model as
>> 2.6+, but that is quite a bit of work; not to update the python25  
>> port but
>> to remove all the dependencies which have built up using those  
>> modules that
>> would no longer be needed.
>
> The dependencies are not the only problem. An upgrade would always
> upgrade python25 before py25-* as this is the dependency chain, so  
> there
> is no easy transition.
>
>> I've started bringing modules into py26-* from the py- and py25-  
>> side, so
>> maybe we can start moving everything possible over to 2.6 and not  
>> worry too
>> much about the older versions.
>
> Getting rid of python24 would be the first start. Too many ports still
> depend on it and so it is very likely to end up having three  
> versions of
> python being installed at the same time.
>

Here's how I thought of it (using hashlib as an example):

Once the python25 port is updated, the hashlib module will be located  
one level
above the "site-packages" directory. So, all "import hashlib"  
statements would
result in importing the hashlib module installed by python25, not the  
one installed
by py25-hashlib.

There would still be ports depending on py25-hashlib but they would  
work fine.
We could remove the dependency on py25-hashlib from other ports one by  
one
and then finally remove py25-hashlib.

Is this correct, or do I miss something obvious here?

Arthur