[users] Denyhosts on RHEL3 - problem with Python version

Dag Wieers dag at wieers.com
Tue Feb 28 20:14:16 CET 2006


On Tue, 28 Feb 2006, Wil Cooley wrote:

> On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 18:25 +0100, Dag Wieers wrote:
> 
> > Straight forward to package and install, but hard to do correct and not 
> > mess up. A lot of tools on your system use python and use python modules. 
> 
> That's why I've built the packages so they can be installed alongside
> the stock packages.

Ok, but only one can be the default. And things might break because a 
module currently cannot be installed alongside other python module 
packages.

Sure you can do it manually or repackage with a different name, but it 
breaks a lot of assumptions package management now has. (ie. when you 
upgrade the packages get replaced).

 
> > At this moment you cannot install python modules for different python 
> > versions.
> 
> Not from existing packages, no.  But using 'python2.4 setup.py XXX' gets
> all the paths correct for building new ones.  Modifying current spec
> files to do the right thing with a redefined __python is not too
> difficult.  Fitting into your build system would probably be
> non-trivial, but for the handful of one-offs, doable.  But I'm not
> actually asking you to include them.

Problem is when you upgrade your system, python24-twisted might conflict 
with the (then current) python-twisted for python 2.4. Newer packages have 
no Obsoletes for older non-standard packages.

Even with the custom python24 you might have future conflicts with the 
then current python package. Anaconda hopefully handles it by removing 
whatever conflicts and is not his own.


> > And python without python-twisted, python-crypto, python-elementtree, 
> > python-game, python-imaging, python-numarray, python-numeric, ... is not 
> > very useful.
> 
> Really?  I had particular applications in mind when I built the 2.4
> packages which required none of those.  I also wanted a chance to play
> with the new stuff in 2.4 myself.

That's fine for custom stuff. I'm not saying you can't do what you do. But 
I would personally not advice it to anyone.


> > So personally if you need newer functionality that does not come with 
> > RHEL3, consider to upgrade to RHEL4. I know this is not always possible 
> > (or preferred), believe me, I work for a company that only has RHEL2.1 :)
> > 
> > I see the use in all this, but on the other hand, if you replace core 
> > packages of RHEL3, what do you get ? Something that is no longer RHEL3.
> 
> I started the now-accidentally-destroyed backports repository thinking
> I'd replace stuff, but discovered that a lot of it didn't need
> replacing--it would alongside the stock packages.  I mostly abandoned it
> (and not rebuilt it), however, because I was planning to do just
> that--upgrade to CentOS 4.  But now I'm seeing a hard lock-up trying to
> install 4 on a box identical to one of my servers, so I might be stuck
> with 3 for a while...
> 
> Of course, I'm using CentOS and not RHEL3 anyway ;)

What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet; 

Kind regards,
--   dag wieers,  dag at wieers.com,  http://dag.wieers.com/   --
[all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]



More information about the users mailing list