Re: Bug#362532: RFA: python-medusa
Hello, I'm interested by packaging python-medusa within the debian-python team. I took a look at python-medusa and i wonder why you haven't included docs/ and demo/ directories into the package ? Regards, Arnaud Fontaine pgpp3hXcUqGj7.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: python-support 0.6
Loïc == Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Loïc Sure, I do see the problem in this case, but I think it's not Loïc very common. The problem didn't turn up very often with Loïc python2.4 for example. Hello, This problem happens with python modules which depend on python-setuptools (any-arch package) and precises in debian/pyversions 2.4-. For instance, turbogears and turbomail (the last one is the package I'm preparing) will fail to work on python2.5 because python2.5-setuptools isn't installed and they need pkg_resource module. At the moment, what am I supposed to do with turbomail? In addition, I wonder why python2.5-setuptools doesn't exist? Is there something wrong with setuptools and python2.5? Regards, Arnaud Fontaine
Re: RFS: remote-hellanzb-gui
Clément == Clément Lorteau northern_lig...@users.sourceforge.net writes: Hello, I'm forwarding my RFS of the Remote HellaNZB GUI python application to debian-python list as I forgot to do so initially. I just had a quick look at it... You could get rid of the link within description of binary package and also of debian/docs as cdbs already install the files listed. If you can't find someone to upload this package, I can do it and will have a deeper look at it at the same time. Arnaud pgpNPFqXCt5Xg.pgp Description: PGP signature
turbomail package
Hello, I'm not using Turbogears anymore, nor Turbomail, therefore I'm thinking about orphaning it soon. However, considering the low popcon, maybe it would better to just remove it from the archive, what do you think? Regards, Arnaud Fontaine pgpeJAxNxnLSI.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#623820: RM: python2.5
Hi, zc.buildout: python-zc.buildout I have already prepared a package for zc.buildout (available in pkg-zope SVN repository) and will upload it tomorrow the latest. Cheers, -- Arnaud Fontaine -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/sa5wriklbhs@orfeo.duckcorp.org
Re: RFS: python-unipath -- object-oriented approach to file/pathname manipulations
Hi, Andrew Starr-Bochicchio a.star...@gmail.com writes: Thanks for the very helpful review. No one has gotten back to me on my request to join the project, so I still can't add this to SVN. It seems that you have already been added[0]. I've re-uploaded the package to mentors. It should fix all of the issues you brought up. It can be retrieved with: Thank you very much. I will upload it this evening or tomorrow then. Cheers, -- Arnaud Fontaine [0] https://alioth.debian.org/users/andrewsomething-guest/ pgpxndtwSgO2O.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Problems with building new version of pytools
Hi, Jakub Wilk jw...@debian.org writes: There are two common solutions: 1) Nuke the whole *.egg-info in the clean target. 2) Add it to extend-diff-ignore in debian/source/options. We had the same issue with Zope packages, and nuking the whole *.egg-info in the clean target is not a good idea at all as it does not work all the time, whereas 2) works just fine. Further explanation about the problem we had: SOURCES.txt is usually generated by calling setup.py sdist and upstreams may use svn status to determine which files should be added to this file, and thus which files will be installed at the end. Thus, if you nuke *.egg-info, you will loose that information and when it will be re-generated when building the package, for some reasons it will only consider *.py files as SVN information is not available. That didn't work with Zope packages as *.zcml files where missing from SOURCES.txt (and thus not being installed). Therefore, I think it should be better to recommend 2) (dpkg-source(1)) which is well suited for this purpose IMO. Perhaps it should be added on the Wiki... Regards, -- Arnaud Fontaine pgpoiXrUBzZ6x.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Future of python2.6 in Debian
Hello, Toni Mueller t...@debian.org writes: +1. Time to retire Python 2.6. From Bernd's reply it sounds like the Zope upgrade needn't block this. please DON'T! I am a heavy Zope user, and, as others stated already, the Debian packages for Zope are useless. Sorry to say it that way, but that's what it is. This has nothing to do with the way the Zope packagers in Debian work, just with a gross mismatch of release cycles. Could you please elaborate on that? It would be really useful to get some feedbacks from users actually ;-). Thanks. Cheers, -- Arnaud Fontaine pgp2pt2bAvtT5.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#684560: [gaphor] gaphor requires python-setuptools
Hi,
Jakub Wilk jw...@debian.org writes:
* Gediminas Paulauskas mene...@pov.lt, 2012-08-27, 15:53:
The current behviour of dh_python2 is IMHO errant. It should either
1) translate setuptools in requires.txt into dependency on
python-setuptools or 2) remove setuptools from requires.txt when
translating it into dependency on python-pkg-resources.
dh_python2 does 2) for a year already:
python-defaults (2.7.2-2) experimental; urgency=low
[ Piotr Ożarowski ] * dh_python2:
...
- remove setuptools from requires.txt (it is replaced with
python-pkg-resources Debian dependency) ...
Good point, I forgot about it. A no-change rebuild would fix the
following binary packages:
python-zc.buildout
python-zope.exceptions
python-zope.interface
However, zope.exceptions and zope.interface build also python3-*
packages, which would _not_ be fixed by such rebuild.
Indeed. Thanks for pointing that out, Gediminas and Jakub. I have
written a patch to make the behavior of dh_python2 consistent with
dh_python3 based on [0]. If that patch could be integrated soon, then
only a no-change rebuild would be required, otherwise I will add a
workaround to those 2 packages for Python 3.
Out of curiosity, why is debpython different for python2 and python3 (it
may be a silly question but I must admit that I have not followed
dh_python3 development)? ;-)
Regards,
--
Arnaud Fontaine
[0]
http://anonscm.debian.org/loggerhead/pkg-python/python-defaults-debian/revision/246/debpython/pydist.py
=== modified file 'debpython/pydist.py'
--- debpython/pydist.py 2012-06-30 19:24:20 +
+++ debpython/pydist.py 2012-08-28 03:01:55 +
@@ -181,16 +181,31 @@
ver = None
result = []
+modified = optional_section = False
+processed = []
with open(fname, 'r', encoding='utf-8') as fp:
for line in fp:
line = line.strip()
-# ignore all optional sections
+if not line or line.startswith('#'):
+processed.append(line)
+continue
if line.startswith('['):
-break
-if line:
-dependency = guess_dependency(line, ver)
-if dependency:
-result.append(dependency)
+optional_section = True
+if optional_section:
+processed.append(line)
+continue
+dependency = guess_dependency(line, ver)
+if dependency:
+result.append(dependency)
+if 'setuptools' in line.lower():
+modified = True
+else:
+processed.append(line)
+else:
+processed.append(line)
+if modified:
+with open(fname, 'w') as fp:
+fp.writelines(i + '\n' for i in processed)
return result
pgpMhcuf53Pcq.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: python-support deprecation MBF coordination
Hi, Luca Falavigna dktrkr...@debian.org writes: as discussed in [0], I'd like to propose a mass bug filing to announce the deprecation of python-support. As suggested by Barry, I'd welcome maintainers who do not want to transition to dh_python2 to mark the bugs as wontfix. [...] Arnaud Fontaine ar...@debian.org impacket pyscript Thanks for the reminder. FTR, I have just uploaded these two packages to use dh_python2 rather than pysupport. Cheers, -- Arnaud Fontaine pgp0USbADNE7s.pgp Description: PGP signature
Remove python 2.7.3-13 (experimental)?
Hello, python 2.7.3-13 as available in experimental does not take into account recent changes in unstable, especially the removal of python 2.6 from supported versions, so that it's not possible to build most packages with the version in experimental as python-setuptools is no longer available for python2.6. Should it be removed then? Cheers, -- Arnaud Fontaine pgpOmMBhpvFn2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: python3.3 status
Hello, Arnaud Fontaine ar...@debian.org writes: I can sponsor zope.interface upload if that's ok for Gediminas. I have prepared zope.interface for upload and noticed that tests fail with python 3.3 because of a bug in zope.exceptions fixed in 4.0.1 (only 4.0.0.1 is currently available in Debian). This is probably not required to fix for the upload but I thought it would be a good thing to fix it. So, I imported the changes in zope.exceptions from Ubuntu and bumped required versionof python3-zope.exceptions inDepends for python3-zope.testrunner. Gediminas: I think these changes are fine but could you please confirm that these 3 packages can be uploaded as available in the SVN? Thank you very much! Cheers, -- Arnaud Fontaine pgpCv9UF7Nx7b.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: python3.3 status
Hi, Gediminas Paulauskas mene...@pov.lt writes: Please also upload zope.component 3.11.0 at the same time, to match a big move of code to zope.interface = 3.8 Thanks, I have just uploaded these 4 packages. Cheers, -- Arnaud Fontaine -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/874ncxmey2@duckcorp.org
Re: ITP persistent and merging zope and python teams?
Hi, Barry Warsaw ba...@debian.org writes: As a side question, I wonder if it still makes sense to continue to segregate the ZTK packages under pkg-zope-developers. Why not fold all/most/some of those packages into DPMT? They're both under svn so it should be pretty easy to do, and the DPMT seems to be the much more active team than p-z-d. Thoughts? I'm not really active lately but I think it would be a good idea to move most of packages (the ones listed by Brian in his previous email seems fine to me) to DPMT. BTW, even if this document is not up-to-date, we used to target ZTK version: https://wiki.debian.org/Zope/ZTK . Shall we keep doing that? Cheers, -- Arnaud Fontaine -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87a98z2gre@duckcorp.org
Re: Packaging new version of ZODB (Zope Object Database)
Hi, Barry Warsaw <ba...@debian.org> writes: > +1. I do still touch some of the ztk packages and would dearly love > to ditch svn, but just haven't had the time to think about a proper > migration. Should we just admit defeat and do on-demand conversions, > preserving history if possible but not worrying about it too much? I haven't had time to work on the migration. On-demand conversion is fine with me. Is there any problem in preserving history while migrating From SVN to Git? Cheers, -- Arnaud Fontaine signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Packaging new version of ZODB (Zope Object Database)
Hi,
> I write to debian-python, because some of the involved packages are
> not specific to Zope. Actually, I even think that ZODB itself is not
> specific to Zope, but well, changing section of existing packages can
> be another topic.
This has already been discussed but all the packages in pkg-zope SVN
repository will have to be moved to python-{modules, apps} repositories
(because there is almost no activity on pkg-zope and most modules are
used independently of Zope anyway) and we should use debian-python ML
for the same reason, so yes, please use debian-python ML and commit
everything to python-{modules, apps} repositories.
Also, let me know when you want to upload as I can sponsor without
problem.
Cheers,
--
Arnaud Fontaine
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Re: updating mechanize - help concerning tests with pybuild
Hi, > The current maintainers/uploaders are > Maintainer: Debian/Ubuntu Zope Team > > Uploaders: Brian Sutherland , >Fabio Tranchitella , >Jérémy Bobbio , >Matthias Klose , > Arnaud Fontaine > (In CC, but Brian removed, he already declared he does not want to > maintain the package anymore, see bug #869439) > > I would be interested in adopting mechanize if the current maintainers > / uploaders are fine with it. Or we put it into the python modules team > and I do the stuff there. All is fine for me. As I have no plan to work on it, I think it is better if someone else maintains it, so please go ahead and thanks for taking over maintenance! Regards, -- Arnaud Fontaine
