On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 01:59, Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
Luk Claes l...@debian.org writes:
There is currently discussion ongoing about how to move forward,
though due to the complex nature of the current situation (where also
lots of FUD etc is on the lists), it is being
Sandro Tosi mo...@debian.org writes:
So, three months are passed since the last email to the original thread
and 1 week from this last ping, and there are still no public
information about the currently discussion ongoing about how to move
forward.
Nice, let's keep this hidden, so that only
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 21:53, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote:
Sandro Tosi mo...@debian.org writes:
So, three months are passed since the last email to the original thread
and 1 week from this last ping, and there are still no public
information about the currently discussion ongoing about
Sandro Tosi mo...@debian.org writes:
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 21:53, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote:
Maybe the group of people doing that work should also be the people who
decide when Python 2.6 will be uploaded, if the current maintainer
isn't able or willing to coordinate the work for
On 08/03/10 at 16:14 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Sandro Tosi mo...@debian.org writes:
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 21:53, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote:
Maybe the group of people doing that work should also be the people who
decide when Python 2.6 will be uploaded, if the current maintainer
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 07:44, Lucas Nussbaum lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net wrote:
Last time I investigated the python problems, it was quite clear that
the situation wasn't as black and white as some people seem to think.
Mind to share the results of your investigations (even if probably a
bit
OoO En cette nuit nuageuse du mardi 09 mars 2010, vers 01:14, Russ
Allbery r...@debian.org disait :
Maybe the group of people doing that work should also be the people who
decide when Python 2.6 will be uploaded, if the current maintainer
isn't able or willing to coordinate the work for
On 09/03/10 at 08:05 +0100, Sandro Tosi wrote:
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 07:44, Lucas Nussbaum lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net wrote:
Last time I investigated the python problems, it was quite clear that
the situation wasn't as black and white as some people seem to think.
Mind to share the results
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 08:09, Vincent Bernat ber...@debian.org wrote:
Some respectable people keep telling us that the problem is handled and
the solution will come soon.
But OTOH very very few advances are made during these months, that
doesn't encourage to believe that soon is really soon
Vincent Bernat ber...@debian.org writes:
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org disait:
Well, I'm personally not directly involved with Python development, but
it seems like a lot of people are upset with the way that the python
package is being maintained. We do have a procedure for this: it falls
Luk Claes l...@debian.org writes:
There is currently discussion ongoing about how to move forward,
though due to the complex nature of the current situation (where also
lots of FUD etc is on the lists), it is being dealt in private.
Nearly three months later, the issue remains: Python in
Steve Langasek wrote:
No, because it's no longer an objective measure of whether the
maintenance of the package is adequate. Your definition of adequate
maintenance is now based on how Debian is doing *compared to* Ubuntu,
which is not a standard that would be used anywhere else!
You are
On Monday 07 December 2009, Frans Pop wrote:
But when you have a core package maintained by one and the same person,
I do think that that person has a moral obligation to maintain his
package as well and as timely for Debian as he does for Ubuntu.
And has an obligation to discuss major changes
Le dimanche 06 décembre 2009 à 22:47 -0800, Steve Langasek a écrit :
Python in Debian is currently in bad shape; on this, there is no
disagreement whatsoever. But it's in bad shape by the measure that *it's
not meeting the needs of our users*, not because of where it stands relative
to
On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 04:48:37PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 02:11:41PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
The question of whether someone is doing an adequate job of maintaining a
package is a legitimate one. The identity of their employer is
immaterial
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 01:56:50 +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
When it came to evaluating the same for Debian, his technical opinion
won (e.g. the problem with setup.py changes mentioned some time ago) for
the time being, and now that python2.6 would be ready to upload,
Matthias turned ill (or
On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 01:14:36AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
The right thing, I think, is to do it in the open.
IMHO the best thing to do would be to maintain the policy document in a
reasonable VCS and commit frequently. People who are really interested
will drain the needed
Le jeudi 03 décembre 2009 à 19:28 +0100, Luk Claes a écrit :
There is currently discussion ongoing about how to move forward, though
due to the complex nature of the current situation (where also lots of
FUD etc is on the lists), it is being dealt in private.
This is absolute bullshit. The
Le jeudi 03 décembre 2009 à 22:46 +0100, Luk Claes a écrit :
Many still seem to think that Ubuntu is sufficiently close to Debian
that work done in it should be easily transferrable. If this is not the
case, maybe we need to start treating Ubuntu more like we do Fedora.
Because it is
Luk Claes l...@debian.org writes:
This discussion on -devel is quite useless and contra productive for
everyone involved.
There is currently discussion ongoing about how to move forward, though
due to the complex nature of the current situation (where also lots of
FUD etc is on the lists),
I demand that Henrique de Moraes Holschuh may or may not have written...
On Wed, 02 Dec 2009, Norbert Preining wrote:
[snip]
My program allows exactely that, and uses either DBus/HAL interface
of /dev/rfkill.
Just keep in mind that /dev/rfkill manipulates radios of a given _type_ as
a
Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le jeudi 03 décembre 2009 à 22:46 +0100, Luk Claes a écrit :
Many still seem to think that Ubuntu is sufficiently close to Debian
that work done in it should be easily transferrable. If this is not the
case, maybe we need to start treating Ubuntu more like we do
Michael Banck wrote:
When it came to evaluating the same for Debian, his technical opinion
won (e.g. the problem with setup.py changes mentioned some time ago) for
the time being, and now that python2.6 would be ready to upload,
Matthias turned ill (or was distracted by other real life stuff
The recent thread RFC: organising focused BSPs should have gotten
this much attention.
Debian is behind in many ways when it comes to the latest whatever,
but I guess people will complain.
I think Debian is amazing and will persevere. Thank you to those
working so hard to make it so.
Pete
--
Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le jeudi 03 décembre 2009 à 19:28 +0100, Luk Claes a écrit :
There is currently discussion ongoing about how to move forward, though
due to the complex nature of the current situation (where also lots of
FUD etc is on the lists), it is being dealt in private.
This
I think the proper subject for this mail would have been:
Does the Python maintainer still have Debian as his priority? [1]
Shifting priority seems to be a fairly common pattern (to differing
degrees) for DDs employed by Canonical.
Not at all surprising of course, and not even something to
* Frans Pop elen...@planet.nl [2009-12-03 14:11]:
[1] IMO this question is fair since Matthias is listed as sole maintainer
for Python packages.
I agree it's a fair question but you guys should really CC Matthias
since -devel is not a required list.
--
Martin Michlmayr
http://www.cyrius.com/
On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 02:11:41PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
IMO the solution is simple. *We* as the Debian project should make sure
that core packages of *our* distribution are maintained by people who's
first priority is Debian, and not another distribution.
Take care to make sure our core
Martin Michlmayr wrote:
* Frans Pop elen...@planet.nl [2009-12-03 14:11]:
[1] IMO this question is fair since Matthias is listed as sole
maintainer for Python packages.
I agree it's a fair question but you guys should really CC Matthias
since -devel is not a required list.
It wasn't meant
Steve Langasek, 2009-12-03 06:17:05 -0800 :
[...]
Conflict of interest? Oh, disregard the previous comments, then;
apparently this /is/ just a thinly-veiled slander.
Not necessarily. I'm not sure about the state of law worldwide, but
French law has at least two criteria for slander (which
On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 15:46:48 +0100 Roland Mas lola...@debian.org wrote:
The timing of #559206 is probably just an unfortunate coincidence, but
I find it telling nevertheless.
If you look, you'll find the equivalent Ubuntu upload had the same bug, so
I'm not clear what it's telling you?
Scott
On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 10:17:26AM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
P.S. It's been mentioned on IRC, but not in this thread, that Mathiaz is
currently ill, so I would suspect reading threads like this isn't currently
his highest priority.
I hope Mathias will get well soon.
The fact that people
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 02:11:41PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
The question of whether someone is doing an adequate job of maintaining a
package is a legitimate one. The identity of their employer is
immaterial to an objective examination of this question.
I think it *is*
On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 04:48:37PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
So yes, I do have a problem with the way Canonical is taking developer
commitment away from Debian, at least if and when maintainers no longer
honor their Debian commitments *and* do not allow others to take over the
work for
On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 04:58:58PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 04:48:37PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
So yes, I do have a problem with the way Canonical is taking developer
commitment away from Debian, at least if and when maintainers no longer
honor their Debian
On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 10:08:15AM -0600, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
True. IIUC, From a technical point of view, the Social Contract
demands commitments from contributors with regard to their work for
Debian; and nobody has committed to do X in Debian before they do it
for someone else. So, I
Frans Pop wrote:
Martin Michlmayr wrote:
* Frans Pop elen...@planet.nl [2009-12-03 14:11]:
[1] IMO this question is fair since Matthias is listed as sole
maintainer for Python packages.
I agree it's a fair question but you guys should really CC Matthias
since -devel is not a required list.
So, Debian is no longer an open project?
Luk Claes wrote:
Frans Pop wrote:
Martin Michlmayr wrote:
* Frans Pop elen...@planet.nl [2009-12-03 14:11]:
[1] IMO this question is fair since Matthias is listed as sole
maintainer for Python packages.
I agree it's a fair question but you guys
On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 04:58:58PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
I do not completely agree that this is Canonical's fault. IMHO it is
our fault as well if we do not step in by using the defined ways we have
(Technical Committee) and sort out the situation for the profit of our
users. Allowing
Frans Pop wrote:
I think it *is* material in this instance:
Versions of python-defaults in Debian:
unstable: 2.5.4-2
experimental: 2.5.4-3
Version of package in Ubuntu:
Version: 2.6.4-0ubuntu1 (karmic)
Uploaded by: Matthias Klose
On date: 2009-10-30 12:05:08 UTC
That is over *two
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Joey Hess jo...@debian.org wrote:
Frans Pop wrote:
I think it *is* material in this instance:
Versions of python-defaults in Debian:
unstable: 2.5.4-2
experimental: 2.5.4-3
Version of package in Ubuntu:
Version: 2.6.4-0ubuntu1 (karmic)
Uploaded by:
Joey Hess wrote:
Perhaps more germane to the head of this thread is that python3.0 is not
in Debian, but prereleases were added to Ubuntu apparently in 2007.
There is a python3 and python3.1 package available in experimental.
--
Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life
On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 04:34:42PM -0500, James Vega wrote:
Version: 2.6.2-0ubuntu1 (jaunty)
Apparently uploaded *33 weeks* ago.
Perhaps more germane to the head of this thread is that python3.0 is not
in Debian, but prereleases were added to Ubuntu apparently in 2007.
The python3.1
Steve Langasek wrote:
The question of whether someone is doing an adequate job of maintaining a
package is a legitimate one. The identity of their employer is immaterial
to an objective examination of this question.
I think this argument only makes sense if the distribution they are
working
Joey Hess wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
The question of whether someone is doing an adequate job of maintaining a
package is a legitimate one. The identity of their employer is immaterial
to an objective examination of this question.
I think this argument only makes sense if the
Luk Claes l...@debian.org writes:
This discussion on -devel is quite useless and contra productive for
everyone involved.
Yet it is the forum where everyone *is* involved. This is an open
project, I hope.
There is currently discussion ongoing about how to move forward,
though due to the
Right now we're working on updating the Debian Python Policy. Once we'll
be happy with the first set of patches, we'll send them to debian-python
mailing list. I don't see a reason to make it public right now as it's
simply not ready. Does it really matter that I'm not preparing it alone?
If I
On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 04:48:37PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 02:11:41PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
The question of whether someone is doing an adequate job of maintaining a
package is a legitimate one. The identity of their employer is
immaterial
Piotr Ożarowski pi...@debian.org wrote in message
news:20091203235820.gf6...@piotro.eu...
Right now we're working on updating the Debian Python Policy. Once we'll
be happy with the first set of patches, we'll send them to debian-python
mailing list. I don't see a reason to make it public right
On Thu, Dec 03 2009, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
Right now we're working on updating the Debian Python Policy. Once we'll
be happy with the first set of patches, we'll send them to debian-python
mailing list. I don't see a reason to make it public right now as it's
simply not ready. Does it really
On 03/12/09 at 23:55 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Thu, Dec 03 2009, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
Right now we're working on updating the Debian Python Policy. Once we'll
be happy with the first set of patches, we'll send them to debian-python
mailing list. I don't see a reason to make it
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 03/12/09 at 23:55 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Thu, Dec 03 2009, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
Right now we're working on updating the Debian Python Policy. Once we'll
be happy with the first set of patches, we'll send them to debian-python
mailing list. I don't see a
On Fri, Dec 04 2009, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 03/12/09 at 23:55 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Thu, Dec 03 2009, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
Right now we're working on updating the Debian Python Policy. Once we'll
be happy with the first set of patches, we'll send them to debian-python
Python3 was released upstream exactly 1 year ago, but Python3.* still
hasn't been released in Debian Unstable.
Hell, even the even older Python2.6 is not there yet.
I appreciate all the hard work that needs to done to maintain
packages, but if you're going to maintain packages as important as
Angus wrote:
Python3 was released upstream exactly 1 year ago, but Python3.* still
hasn't been released in Debian Unstable.
Hell, even the even older Python2.6 is not there yet.
[...]
Does Debian even have a roadmap for Python? If there is any, I'm not
seeing it. At least be transparent about
Hello Angus,
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 09:06, Angus charmen...@gmail.com wrote:
Python3 was released upstream exactly 1 year ago, but Python3.* still
hasn't been released in Debian Unstable.
Hell, even the even older Python2.6 is not there yet.
I appreciate all the hard work that needs to done
Sandro Tosi mo...@debian.org writes:
This (and other) rant are a signal we should create a TEAM around any
fundamental packages in Debian, and python MUST NOT be and exception.
Am I the only one (together with Angus, I'd say) believing python
deserves a better maintainership than the one it
Le mercredi 02 décembre 2009 à 09:27 +0100, Sandro Tosi a écrit :
The problem with Python (interpreters packages) is the maintainer,
that's force us in his one-man-show and, as you can see, it's failing
loudly. Matthias is holding back the release and his not willing to
communicate to the
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 10:17, Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
Sandro Tosi mo...@debian.org writes:
This (and other) rant are a signal we should create a TEAM around any
fundamental packages in Debian, and python MUST NOT be and exception.
Am I the only one (together with Angus,
On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 17:06:40 +0900, Angus charmen...@gmail.com wrote:
Or
otherwise, let someone else do it (like me).
We actually need people showing traces of social skills, which you
don't.
Greetings
Marc
--
-- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -
Marc
On 02/12/09 at 09:27 +0100, Sandro Tosi wrote:
Hello Angus,
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 09:06, Angus charmen...@gmail.com wrote:
Python3 was released upstream exactly 1 year ago, but Python3.* still
hasn't been released in Debian Unstable.
Hell, even the even older Python2.6 is not there yet.
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
It's a bit too easy to behave like an ass and insult him, and then
complain that he is not talking to you or willing to work with you.
There were several nice and friendly attempts to get this problem fixed behind
the scenes - but Matthias didn't even bother to reply to
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Lucas Nussbaum lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net wrote:
It's a bit too easy to behave like an ass and insult him, and then
complain that he is not talking to you or willing to work with you.
Right. Let him talk about current status of Python in Debian.
--
Cheers,
On Dec 2, 2009, at 10:26, Sandro Tosi wrote:
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 10:17, Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
Sandro Tosi mo...@debian.org writes:
This (and other) rant are a signal we should create a TEAM around any
fundamental packages in Debian, and python MUST NOT be and
Le mercredi 02 décembre 2009 à 12:07 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
Seriously, Sandro. Do you really think that, in Matthias' position, you
would agree to team-maintain Python with people that attack you so
harshly on public mailing lists?
I certainly wouldn’t want to co-maintain anything
HI all,
I have no personal opinion on python, but seeing that the maintainer
has not stepped up and at elast *explained* what is going on and why
we are lacking behind several releases is not a good sign.
On Mi, 02 Dez 2009, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
It's a bit too easy to behave like an ass and
I agree that the current situation sucks. However, I've been involved in
discussion with various developers on both sides (Debian and Ubuntu)
that are interested in finding solutions. I'm still confident that we
can reach a solution. But clearly, attacking each other like that is
I agree that the current situation sucks. However, I've been involved in
discussion with various developers on both sides (Debian and Ubuntu)
that are interested in finding solutions. I'm still confident that we
can reach a solution. But clearly, attacking each other like that is
On 02/12/09 at 14:26 +0100, Norbert Preining wrote:
HI all,
I have no personal opinion on python, but seeing that the maintainer
has not stepped up and at elast *explained* what is going on and why
we are lacking behind several releases is not a good sign.
On Mi, 02 Dez 2009, Lucas
On Mi, 02 Dez 2009, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Also, FWIW, I was told that Matthias is currently unable to read/answer
email. So don't put too much hope in a statement from him in the next
hours.
Actually I don't care. I have used python only for a small applet
that allows turning on/off rfkills
On Wed, 02 Dec 2009, Norbert Preining wrote:
Actually I don't care. I have used python only for a small applet
that allows turning on/off rfkills (why is there nothing in the world
by now, strange, maybe I should package it for debian, but I have
On Mi, 02 Dez 2009, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=538389
Nice try, but I was talking about a GNOME/systray applet I wrote
so that you can click-point turning on/off the various hardwares.
This is currently only possible for the bluetooth in
On Wed, 02 Dec 2009, Norbert Preining wrote:
On Mi, 02 Dez 2009, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=538389
Nice try, but I was talking about a GNOME/systray applet I wrote
so that you can click-point turning on/off the various hardwares.
Hi Henrique,
not sure if it fits here, but still interesting.
On Mi, 02 Dez 2009, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
Ah, ok. NetworkManager is supposed to be able to deal with rfkill, too
But probably only for WLAN, not WWAN. And then, I don't want install
the whole bunch of horrible NM
On Wed, 02 Dec 2009, Norbert Preining wrote:
Just keep in mind that /dev/rfkill manipulates radios of a given _type_
as a group, and that an user could have many radios of the same type,
*Really*?? I was looking into the rfkill code since I reimplemented
the protocol in my python applet
On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 05:06:40PM +0900, Angus wrote:
Python3 was released upstream exactly 1 year ago, but Python3.* still
hasn't been released in Debian Unstable.
Hell, even the even older Python2.6 is not there yet.
I appreciate all the hard work that needs to done to maintain
packages,
Ana Guerrero a...@debian.org writes:
If you really want to help, read the mail archive of the debian-python
mailing list [1] (optionally hang out in the IRC channel), and get
an idea of what the problem is.
I also advise to take a look to the archive to people participating
in this thread
77 matches
Mail list logo
