Le mardi 17 février 2009 à 10:50 +1100, Felipe Sateler a écrit :
current does not mean anything, semantically, especially for public
modules/extensions. There is a set of supported versions, and that’s
all. For extensions, it is the set of versions the extension has been
built against, and
Josselin Mouette wrote:
XS-Python-Version: current means the following: even if several Python
versions are available, the module will only be built for the default
version. *This declaration has nothing to do with the supported Python
versions.* If we really needed it, it should go in
Le mardi 17 février 2009 à 22:06 +1100, Felipe Sateler a écrit :
Josselin Mouette wrote:
XS-Python-Version: current means the following: even if several Python
versions are available, the module will only be built for the default
version. *This declaration has nothing to do with the
Le lundi 16 février 2009 à 22:33 +0100, Matthias Klose a écrit :
I really like the idea of using the same location for both tools, please
note
that you'll have to change pycentral to use something like /usr/lib/pyshared
(for Python extensions)
where is the advantage of having a
Michal Čihař wrote:
Various
---
There are other things which may be worth a look.
- Can you guys please finally sit down and agree on one solution for
handling python modules? I still think that having two (slightly
different) ways of doing this task is not the way to go. I really
Le mardi 17 février 2009 à 15:03 +0100, Bernd Zeimetz a écrit :
- Can you guys please finally sit down and agree on one solution for
handling python modules? I still think that having two (slightly
different) ways of doing this task is not the way to go. I really do
not see technical
Felipe Sateler fsate...@gmail.com writes:
Josselin Mouette wrote:
XS-Python-Version: current means the following: even if several
Python versions are available, the module will only be built for the
default version. *This declaration has nothing to do with the supported
Python versions.* If
Hi Joss,
On Dienstag, 17. Februar 2009, Josselin Mouette wrote:
You really can’t say I’m not trying to discuss.
I'm not sure if one cannot say this, as you nicely show in the following
words that you definitly totally fail to discuss :(
But it takes at least
two persons to discuss, and
On Tue, 2009-17-02 at 17:09 +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
Hi Joss,
On Dienstag, 17. Februar 2009, Josselin Mouette wrote:
You really can’t say I’m not trying to discuss.
I'm not sure if one cannot say this, as you nicely show in the following
words that you definitly totally fail to
Hey,
On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 17:09 +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
But it takes at least
two persons to discuss, and Matthias has been ignoring all technical
discussions about Python packaging for years.
This is not a technical problem. The technical divergences can be solved
if consensus
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 6:44 AM, Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org wrote:
Le mardi 17 février 2009 à 15:03 +0100, Bernd Zeimetz a écrit :
- Can you guys please finally sit down and agree on one solution for
handling python modules? I still think that having two (slightly
different) ways
Le mardi 17 février 2009 à 10:09 -0800, Ondrej Certik a écrit :
Unfortunately from both of you I only met Matthias in person (in
Prague at the Ubuntu Developer Summit), but what I understood is that
there are some technical reasons why python-central is better.
I’d be happy to hear these
OoO Lors de la soirée naissante du mardi 17 février 2009, vers 17:09,
Holger Levsen hol...@layer-acht.org disait :
This is not a technical problem. The technical divergences can be solved
if consensus is reached about them or if a decision body (TC or GR)
forces them. This is purely a
[Matthias Klose, 2009-02-16]
Piotr Ożarowski schrieb:
- 2.5 is superseded by 2.6; currently there doesn't seem to be
a reason to ship 2.5 and modules for 2.5 with the next stable
release. The upstream 2.5 maintainance branch doesn't see bug
fixes anymore, only security releases
Le mercredi 18 février 2009 à 01:20 +0100, Piotr Ożarowski a écrit :
where is the advantage of having a /usr/lib/pyshared?
it's one of the sacrifices you'll have to make if you want
/usr/share/py{,3}shared to be used by other tool(s). I see no way to use
Python's official path in pysupport
[Josselin Mouette, 2009-02-18]
Le mercredi 18 février 2009 à 01:20 +0100, Piotr Ożarowski a écrit :
where is the advantage of having a /usr/lib/pyshared?
it's one of the sacrifices you'll have to make if you want
/usr/share/py{,3}shared to be used by other tool(s). I see no way to use
Le mercredi 18 février 2009 à 02:23 +0100, Piotr Ożarowski a écrit :
that's exactly what I meant, /usr/lib/py{3,}shared will be equivalent of
/usr/share/py{,3}shared but for Python extensions, sorry if I sounded
differently
OK, I misunderstood you then :)
Any comment on the module
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org wrote:
Le mardi 17 février 2009 à 10:09 -0800, Ondrej Certik a écrit :
Unfortunately from both of you I only met Matthias in person (in
Prague at the Ubuntu Developer Summit), but what I understood is that
there are some
[Piotr Ożarowski, 2009-02-18]
that's exactly what I meant, /usr/lib/py{3,}shared will be equivalent of
/usr/share/py{,3}shared but for Python extensions, sorry if I sounded
differently
and by that I mean /usr/lib/py{3,}shared/python2.5,
/usr/lib/py{3,}shared/python2.6 and so on (including .py
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 6:03 AM, Piotr Ożarowski pi...@debian.org wrote:
[Matthias Klose, 2009-02-16]
Besides the normal pending update of the python version for the
unstable distribution, there will be more changes around python
packaging, including the introduction of python-3.x and
Dne Wed, 18 Feb 2009 13:16:09 +0900
Paul Wise p...@debian.org napsal(a):
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 6:03 AM, Piotr Ożarowski pi...@debian.org wrote:
[Matthias Klose, 2009-02-16]
Besides the normal pending update of the python version for the
unstable distribution, there will be more changes
Besides the normal pending update of the python version for the
unstable distribution, there will be more changes around python
packaging, including the introduction of python-3.x and addressing
some packaging issues.
Python versions
---
- 2.4 is still used by zope-2.x and
[debian-pyt...@l.d.o added to To and Reply-To, citing whole mail for those who
don't read -devel, me included ]
First of all: thanks Matthias for your work on Python package(s)
[Matthias Klose, 2009-02-16]
Besides the normal pending update of the python version for the
unstable distribution,
Le lundi 16 février 2009 à 20:33 +0100, Matthias Klose a écrit :
Besides the normal pending update of the python version for the
unstable distribution, there will be more changes around python
packaging, including the introduction of python-3.x and addressing
some packaging issues.
It’s nice
Piotr Oz.arowski schrieb:
- 2.5 is superseded by 2.6; currently there doesn't seem to be
a reason to ship 2.5 and modules for 2.5 with the next stable
release. The upstream 2.5 maintainance branch doesn't see bug
fixes anymore, only security releases will be made from this
Le lundi 16 février 2009 à 22:33 +0100, Matthias Klose a écrit :
current is also useful to only provide a public module for just the default
version. I'm unsure what you mean with when talking about the above mentioned
issue
Is it a joke? If you don’t know what this is about, why are you even
Hi Matthias,
thanks for all the work you do. I have one question:
- 3.0/3.1: I do not plan to upload 3.0 to unstable or experimental,
but will prepare 3.1 packages for experimental and upload those
to unstable with the final release or a late release candidate.
The 3.1 release is
Ondrej Certik schrieb:
Hi Matthias,
thanks for all the work you do. I have one question:
- 3.0/3.1: I do not plan to upload 3.0 to unstable or experimental,
but will prepare 3.1 packages for experimental and upload those
to unstable with the final release or a late release candidate.
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Matthias Klose d...@debian.org wrote:
Ondrej Certik schrieb:
Hi Matthias,
thanks for all the work you do. I have one question:
- 3.0/3.1: I do not plan to upload 3.0 to unstable or experimental,
but will prepare 3.1 packages for experimental and upload
Hi
[I agree that this should have have been sent also to debian-python]
Dne Mon, 16 Feb 2009 20:33:48 +0100
Matthias Klose d...@cs.tu-berlin.de napsal(a):
- 3.0/3.1: I do not plan to upload 3.0 to unstable or experimental,
but will prepare 3.1 packages for experimental and upload those
Various
---
There are other things which may be worth a look.
- Can you guys please finally sit down and agree on one solution for
handling python modules? I still think that having two (slightly
different) ways of doing this task is not the way to go. I really do
not see technical
Matthias Klose d...@cs.tu-berlin.de writes:
Local installation path
---
[…]
- /usr/lib/pythonX.Y/dist-packages (installation location for code
packaged for Debian)
- /usr/local/lib/pythonX.Y/dist-packages (installation location
for locally installed code using
Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le lundi 16 février 2009 à 22:33 +0100, Matthias Klose a écrit :
current is also useful to only provide a public module for just the default
version. I'm unsure what you mean with when talking about the above mentioned
issue
Is it a joke? If you don’t know what this
33 matches
Mail list logo
