Re: python 2.2 to python 2.3 transition
Depending on Python 2.3 when a package works fine with 2.1 and 2.2 as well is not a good solution in my opinion. Modem users must spend an extra hour downloading just to get a tiny package too.
Re: #!/usr/bin/python2.3 vs #!/usr/bin/env python2.3
Quoting John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hello, Many Python programs use constructs like #!/usr/bin/env python2.3 to load themselves. Many others use #!/usr/bin/python2.3. On most Debian systems, these are the same. The submitter in #189473 claims that #!/usr/bin/env python2.3 is wrong because he has his own python2.3 on the path prior to the system's, and it doesn't necessarily have requisite libraries for the programs being run. #!/usr/bin/env python2.3 helps programs running everywhere, i.e. they will work with people that installed python in /usr/local/bin for instance. -- Jérôme Marant
Re: #!/usr/bin/python2.3 vs #!/usr/bin/env python2.3
Quoting Jérôme Marant [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Quoting John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hello, Many Python programs use constructs like #!/usr/bin/env python2.3 to load themselves. Many others use #!/usr/bin/python2.3. On most Debian systems, these are the same. The submitter in #189473 claims that #!/usr/bin/env python2.3 is wrong because he has his own python2.3 on the path prior to the system's, and it doesn't necessarily have requisite libraries for the programs being run. #!/usr/bin/env python2.3 helps programs running everywhere, i.e. they will work with people that installed python in /usr/local/bin for instance. Hmm, after reading everyone's arguments, it seems wiser to use #!/usr/bin/python2.3 in order to avoid mixing with local python installs. -- Jérôme Marant
Re: python 2.2 to python 2.3 transition
On Tue, 2003-08-12 at 12:54, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Hi,
Donovan Baarda wrote:
Using this the python package can notify all packages that depend on
it by calling dpkg-reconfigure on them;
That would work for me too, of course.
egrep ^install ok installed:[^:]*:.*$PYTHONXY([ ,]|$) | \
That regexp looks like it should look like this instead:
egrep ^install ok installed:[^:]*:(|.*[ ,])$PYTHONXY([ ,]|$) | \
so that it doesn't find packages which depend on packages which just happend
to end with $PYTHONXY. (Or perhaps you should rewrite that shell function in
Python. ;-)
Note that there is currently a bug in dpkg-query where ${Depends} output
is prefixed with some binary garbage... this means your modification
will not match where $PYTHONXY is the first dependency.
I don't believe you could use python in this case... this code has to go
into the package pythons postinst script.
--
Donovan Baarda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://minkirri.apana.org.au/~abo/
python transition summary
I've put a summary of packages needing a rebuild in a world-writable file at http://people.debian.org/~joss/python-list.txt Please mark your uploads (maintainer or non-maintainer) in this file (gluck:~joss/public_html/python-list.txt). This is probably the time to start NMU's for library packages. I'd like to add it is the perfect time to make sure all our python packages have correct dependencies and postinst/prerm. This is *far* from being the case: I've noticed many packages are being broken by the current transition, and many .py[co] compilations are useless, generally because of wrong dependencies. So please double-check your dependencies and ask on this list if you need help about them. Regards, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=
Re: python 2.2 to python 2.3 transition
On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 12:38:16PM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote: | On Mon, 2003-08-11 at 22:03, Matthias Urlichs wrote: | Hrm, this could be achieved quite simply, /methinks. It needs little | changes in dh_python and some prerm/postinst stuff in the python package | (not the pythonX.Y package) to rebuild all .pyc's and .pyo's in this | directory upon upgrade. | | Matthias, do you think it is feasible ? | | Would work for me. /usr/lib/site-python is supposed to have clean python | scripts only, so running compileall.py on all subdirectories thereof | should pose no problem. | | The problem I have with it is it doesn't take into account programs with | python modules outside /usr/lib/site-python. Probably mailman is the | prime example. If you want more than one real-world example use zope and the zope-* add-ons. -D -- It took the computational power of three Commodore 64s to fly to the moon. It takes at least a 486 to run Windows 95. Something is wrong here. http://dman13.dyndns.org/~dman/ pgpshP3Eciert.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: python transition and python-tal
Le mar 12/08/2003 à 16:45, Frederic Peters a écrit : Hi, python-tal is maintained by the QA team so I thought I'd help and NMU it. I added a python2.3-tal package and it built correctly but the no-version package (python-tal) still depends upon python2.2-tal (I changed Build-depends-indep to python (= 2.3), python ( 2.4) ). Where did I miss the obvious ? Packages available on http://people.debian.org/~fpeters/python-tal/ What version of python is installed on your system ? Your packages built fine on my system and made python-tal depend on python2.3-tal as expected. Regards, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=
Re: python transition and python-tal
Josselin Mouette wrote : What version of python is installed on your system ? Your packages built fine on my system and made python-tal depend on python2.3-tal as expected. Great. I had python 2.3 installed but not yet as default python version (waiting for python-bsddb3). I don't have access to a chrooted environment for now to build the package; could you (or anybody else) upload the package ? Regards, Frederic
Re: python transition summary
Josselin Mouette writes: I've put a summary of packages needing a rebuild in a world-writable file at http://people.debian.org/~joss/python-list.txt python-numarray-ext = updated but the new package misses python (= 2.3), python ( 2.4) unneeded, as it depends on python-numarray. anyway, thanks for the summary! please could you update a timestamp of the last update? Matthias
Re: python transition and python-tal
Le mar 12/08/2003 à 18:52, Frederic Peters a écrit : Josselin Mouette wrote : What version of python is installed on your system ? Your packages built fine on my system and made python-tal depend on python2.3-tal as expected. Great. I had python 2.3 installed but not yet as default python version (waiting for python-bsddb3). I don't have access to a chrooted environment for now to build the package; could you (or anybody else) upload the package ? It's uploading now. Regards, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=
Re-request for sponsor: python-albatross
Hi, This is my third or fourth attempt to find a sponsor for the python-albatross package. So far, I've been contacted by one developer who was interested in sponsoring the package; he never replied to my reply, however, so I assume he has other things to do at the moment. Meanwhile, I'm continuing my search for a sponsor. Before I resort to bribery, I'm going to try to speak convincingly about Albatross. At the same time, because I suspect there are people on the debian-python list that could be interested but don't read debian-mentors, I'm Cc'ing this mail to debian-python. Albatross is a very nice piece of software for developing small web applications. It's written in Python. Upstream activity seems to have accelerated during the summer and the atmosphere on the Albatross mailing list is very friendly and helpful, with the developers and users juggling ideas, advice and code as ideas, advice and code should be juggled. Recently, for example, a standalone, small HTTP server was introduced by a user, and Albatross now sports support for standalone application deployment in addition to regular CGI, FastCGI and mod_python application deployment with Apache. If you write anything from simple dynamic web pages to full-blown web applications, then you should really check out Albatross. If you'd like to try an approach that is different from PHP but still sensible when the application grows beyond what regular CGI can do, then Albatross may well be worth a look. And if, at the same time, you happen to be a Debian Developer, then please help me introduce this package into Debian. Packages can be found at http://people.paniq.net/~fabbe/debian/albatross/ and an ITP concerning Albatross is at http://bugs.debian.org/193574 The Albatross site is at http://www.object-craft.com.au/projects/albatross/ Thanks for your time, -- Fabian Fagerholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: python 2.2 - python 2.3 transition
Joey Hess wrote: Josip Rodin wrote: Am I the only one who has a disgusting reminiscence of netscape*.* packages every time python* is mentioned? :P Actually I'm more reminded of the perl* packages and the complete mess that followed. And I keep expecting to see the same set of problems affect python. Well, I haven't had any python-related collisions from the pythonX.Y scheme... python (= 2.2), python ( 2.3) I've seen, of course... it would be so much nicer if someone added debian support to distutils, though ;-) (*hint*)
Re: python 2.2 - python 2.3 transition
On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 01:32:33PM -0400, Samuel Bronson wrote: Well, I haven't had any python-related collisions from the pythonX.Y scheme... python (= 2.2), python ( 2.3) I've seen, of course... it would be so much nicer if someone added debian support to distutils, though ;-) (*hint*) Actually, all that have that are now uninstallable. Some important ones have that, such as libwxgtk2.4-python. Shouldn't they depend on python2.2 instead? -- John
