On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 10:55:54AM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
On Wed, 2003-10-08 at 03:28, Matthias Klose wrote:
It does help for python applications, which depend on an explicit
python version. I did not count packages with a 'python2.3 (= 2.3)'
dependency.
I would argue that using a
Colin Watson writes:
The only reason to put a version on a pythonX.Y dependency would be if
you know there was a particular version of pythonX.Y that your package
doesn't work with.
The versioned dependency is probably generated automatically by
dpkg-shlibdeps:
$ cat
Colin Watson writes:
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 07:28:23PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
Colin Watson writes:
For what it's worth, I think a python-defaults source package or some
such would help: at the moment there are several packages needlessly
stalled on python2.3, even though their
On Tue, 2003-10-14 at 04:29, Matthias Klose wrote:
Colin Watson writes:
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 07:28:23PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
Colin Watson writes:
For what it's worth, I think a python-defaults source package or some
such would help: at the moment there are several packages
On Sun, 2003-10-05 at 02:55, Matthias Klose wrote:
Donovan Baarda writes:
On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 02:28:52PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Hi, Colin Watson wrote:
[...]
The second problem is is when we get python (2.4), a new python2.3
package will need to be released just to fix the
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 10:47:09PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
Missing builds
==
* libapache2-mod-python: powerpc
already asked for rebuild ... no reaction.
I could take a look at this in the next day or two, if no one else
bites.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 10:48:11PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
Colin Watson writes:
Buggy packages
==
gnue-* is missing here.
No; gnue-common in testing depended on python2.1, not python. The
version in unstable should certainly be fixed, but it's not holding up
testing.
--
* Matthias Klose [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-09-29 22:47]:
but one of it's build-dep's is listed as:
-gimp1.2 (1.2.3-2.4 to -)
* Maintainer: Ben Gertzfield
* Valid candidate
so probably, it doesn't make sense to move it to testing, if gimp1.2
is removed.
Actually, gimp1.2 still
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 10:47:09PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
* gimp-python: #207304
automake problem, which it seems I failed to fix.
but one of it's build-dep's is listed as:
-gimp1.2 (1.2.3-2.4 to -)
* Maintainer: Ben Gertzfield
* Valid candidate
so probably, it
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 02:02:38PM +1000, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
* Matthias Klose [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-09-29 22:47]:
but one of it's build-dep's is listed as:
-gimp1.2 (1.2.3-2.4 to -)
* Maintainer: Ben Gertzfield
* Valid candidate
so probably, it doesn't make sense to
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 03:21:42PM -, Alastair wrote:
From: Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Missing builds
==
* newt: hppa
Is this an error /out of date? From the archive,
it appears that hppa is up-to-date on newt for
both sarge and sid.
Slightly out of date, yes,
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 11:49:03AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
[ a list of packages skipped ]
is libmetakit-python missing from this list for a reason?
--
Misha
pgpJaTCkadaOr.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 12:16:37PM +0100, Mikhail Sobolev wrote:
is libmetakit-python missing from this list for a reason?
It depends on python2.2, which isn't a problem as far as testing's
concerned. Packages depending on 'python (= 2.2), python ( 2.3)' are
problematic.
--
Colin Watson
(cc'ed to -release for general information)
Hi folks,
Here's a summary of the problems currently blocking python2.3 from
testing. It may be slightly incomplete, but I think I've got most of
them.
Buggy packages
==
[...]
what about python2.3 having Depends: python (= 2.3)
Colin Watson writes:
(cc'ed to -release for general information)
Hi folks,
Here's a summary of the problems currently blocking python2.3 from
testing. It may be slightly incomplete, but I think I've got most of
them.
fyi, yesterday I updated the list from Joss, see
Colin Watson writes:
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 11:29:12PM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
what about python2.3 having Depends: python (= 2.3)
This is IMHO a policy violation. python (2.3) should depend on python2.3,
python2.3 should not depend on python.
It's playing havoc with my mixed
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* python-gnome2: s390
Due to #212854 on gnome-vfs2 ... I'll probably NMU gnome-vfs2 soon if
Takuo KITAME doesn't fix it.
Cheers,
Sebastien Bacher
On Tue, 2003-09-30 at 06:50, Matthias Klose wrote:
Colin Watson writes:
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 11:29:12PM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
what about python2.3 having Depends: python (= 2.3)
This is IMHO a policy violation. python (2.3) should depend on python2.3,
python2.3 should not
18 matches
Mail list logo
