or python2.2
and I think Debian should think also about them.
What about the policy? Is there something which suggests to do this?
What do you thing about my proposal?
Thanks in advance,
Fabio T.
--
Fabio Tranchitella
! kobold.it, Turin, Italy - Free is better
Il mar, 2004-06-15 alle 17:13, Cory Dodt ha scritto:
There is an implicit assumption here that python modules will actually work
for all versions of Python. This is clearly not the case; some will use
features only available in (some newer version X.y). Furthermore, at least a
few (distutils
through the report, I think it isn't too
hard to drop them.
Talk to you later, and have a good day.
--
Fabio Tranchitella
! kobold.it, Turin, Italy - Free is better!
---
http://www.kobold.it, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL
?
Is there someone who disagree with Donovan and me and wants to
leave python2.1 in sarge?
Thanks,
--
Fabio Tranchitella
! kobold.it, Turin, Italy - Free is better!
---
http://www.kobold.it, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED
regards,
- Ramon.
I'm working on this, and I'll adopt the package.
Expect an upload of 0.7-1 in a few days.
--
Fabio Tranchitella [EMAIL PROTECTED].''`.
Proud Debian GNU/Linux developer, admin and user
and *then* ask for
the removal of zope2.7.
In the end, in a few days I'll file the removal request of zope2.7 and
(I hope) ftp-masters will accept zope2.9 package.
--
Fabio Tranchitella [EMAIL PROTECTED].''`.
Proud Debian GNU/Linux developer, admin and user
a python2.5-compatible package.
Thanks,
--
Fabio Tranchitella http://www.kobold.it
Free Software Developer and Consultant http://www.tranchitella.it
_
1024D/7F961564, fpr 5465 6E69 E559 6466 BF3D 9F01
* 2006-12-26 21:53, Piotr Ozarowski wrote:
* 2006-12-23 23:12, Christian Joergensen wrote:
It seems as if there is no support for python 2.5 in this package:
$ pyversions --supported
python2.4
Thanks Piotr,
I'll keep the bug report open for lenny then.
Thanks again,
--
Fabio
and to say the truth I do not understand
why the dependency on python2.4 has been replaced with python (= 2.4).
Any idea?
Thanks in advance,
--
Fabio Tranchitella http://www.kobold.it
Free Software Developer and Consultant http://www.tranchitella.it
to the python2.3 removal.
Urgh, my english is terrible.. Is it more clear now? I do not know if this
would actually work, and all I need now is a god fix for #411657.
Thanks!
--
Fabio Tranchitella http://www.kobold.it
Free Software Developer and Consultant http
is.
At this point, I just would like to know what Matthias think about it
before reverting his change.
Cheers,
--
Fabio Tranchitella http://www.kobold.it
Free Software Developer and Consultant http://www.tranchitella.it
your products folder, it should fix the portal.
Cheers,
--
Fabio Tranchitella http://www.kobold.it
Free Software Developer and Consultant http://www.tranchitella.it
_
1024D/7F961564, fpr 5465 6E69 E559
about. Is there some easy way to strip it from stuff I know I wont be
using (e.i. debug and zope packages)?
You have to rebuild the package in etch, because it contains a binary
library which is depending on a newer libc6 and so on.
Best regards,
--
Fabio Tranchitella http
and
all the other Zope 2 products. We will file requests of removal for all the
Zope and Plone packages from the archive.
Thanks for reading this!
Fabio Tranchitella
on behalf of the Debian/Ubuntu Zope Team
--
Fabio Tranchitella kob...@debian.org.''`.
Proud Debian GNU
and
all the other Zope 2 products. We will file requests of removal for all the
Zope and Plone packages from the archive.
Thanks for reading this!
Fabio Tranchitella
on behalf of the Debian/Ubuntu Zope Team
--
Fabio Tranchitella kob...@debian.org.''`.
Proud Debian GNU
really think that in this moment dropping the packages is the best
solution: we will finally be able to drop python2.4.
For Plone, after 5 years of maintenance in Debian, I'm sure that *not*
having an official package (eg. included in Debian stable) is the best
option for our users.
--
Fabio
/ Ubuntu in this case.
We already have python2.5 and python2.6; after the release of stable
(either Debian or Ubuntu), we have to provide security support for all the
packages, and supporting three different versions of python is too much
work.
--
Fabio Tranchitella http
Hello,
* 2009-06-24 11:20, Sebastien Douche wrote:
Is it possible to keep Python 2.4 with a warning like we don't provide
support on this version ?
No, it is not possible.
--
Fabio Tranchitella http://www.kobold.it
Free Software Developer and Consultant http
Hello Andreas,
* 2009-06-24 13:29, Andreas Tille wrote:
... in Debian stable. What about experimental?
This is possible, indeed, and I like your idea of orphaning the packages
bug keeping them around.
Thanks for your suggestion!
--
Fabio Tranchitella http
/unstable?
I don't see the point of keeping zope2.10 around just because zope2.12 is
not ready: I really want to avoid releasing a new stable release of Debian
or Ubuntu with zope2.10.
--
Fabio Tranchitella http://www.kobold.it
Free Software Developer and Consultant http
.
--
Fabio Tranchitella http://www.kobold.it
Free Software Developer and Consultant http://www.tranchitella.it
_
1024D/7F961564, fpr 5465 6E69 E559 6466 BF3D 9F01 2BF8 EE2B 7F96 1564
Package: wnpp
Severity: normal
I'm going to orphan SQLObject because I don't use it anymore in my
projects; the package is already maintained within the
debian-python-modules team.
Thanks,
Fabio
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe.
* 2010-04-21 01:17, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
I think Fabio (kob...@d.o) also wanted to / is working on a backport,
might make sense to co-maintain that with him. CCed him :)
I'm definitely interested in co-maintaining the backport (and using my own
backport in production already). I'll have a look
* 2010-04-27 15:16, Luca Falavigna wrote:
When dealing with python2.4 removal, we asked Fabio about state of the
art of Zope 2.14 and Plone 4. He replied he hadn't way to look at them at
that time, and he would have looked upgrading the whole stack in
April/May. CCing him, to see if things
* 2010-04-27 18:33, Toni Mueller wrote:
I forgot to ask what'd be the best way to go forward for Plonistas?
I really think that there should be some time for Plonistas to upgrade,
which the current scheme does not allow for.
I personally use the unified installer, and it works fine; I liked
* 2010-06-23 19:34, Toni Mueller wrote:
Some of you recommended using the Unified Installer, which I have quite
mixed results with. I recently talked to a number of Zope and Plone
experts, who uninanimously recommended to stay clear of the UI. So I'm
back to square one, but I'd still like to
* 2010-06-23 21:17, Toni Mueller wrote:
Short story: I want to abandon the UI as soon as possible.
Me too, TBH. But.. sorry, there is either plan buildout, or UI (which
produces a buildout-ready environment). Everything else (eg. debian
packages) has been labeled messy, unstable, old from the
* 2010-06-25 19:20, Toni Mueller wrote:
The only thing I had to change was to set the libdb-dev dependency from
4.8 to 4.7, but then, I only compiled on my workstation, which might be
infected with other backports already.
If you want to make it more official, please step in and tell me what
* 2010-06-30 18:20, Johan Euphrosine wrote:
I made a tentative package for psycopg2 2.2.1, (I just copied 2.0.14-1
debian directory) and ran it throught pbuilder.
Uploaded, thanks!
Fabio
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe.
Hello Matthias,
* 2010-09-26 22:52, Matthias Klose wrote:
At least one of the binary packages built by these source packages ends
up with a dependency, recommendation or suggestion on python2.5 without
having an explicit build dependency on python2.5 or python2.5-dev.
These packages provide
are welcome.
Best regards.
--
Fabio Tranchitella kob...@debian.org.''`.
Proud Debian GNU/Linux developer, admin and user.: :' :
`. `'`
http://people.debian.org/~kobold
* 2010-10-13 10:18, Sandro Tosi wrote:
2.7 is not meant for squeeze (unless a surprise from the maintainer) so
it won't be in testing anytime soon.
Maybe I'm completely wrong, but... isn't lenny-backports-sloppy for these
type of packages? IIRC, python2.7 could go to lenny-backports-sloppy as
* 2010-10-13 10:19, Fabio Tranchitella wrote:
Maybe I'm completely wrong, but... isn't lenny-backports-sloppy for these
type of packages? IIRC, python2.7 could go to lenny-backports-sloppy as
soon as it hits unstable.
Uhm, testing... so you are right, it won't happen anytime soon. :)
Fabio
33 matches
Mail list logo
