, lingering versions of python like 2.1 and 2.2,
but from a release POV I never had strong feelings about getting rid of
python 2.3, which was the current version in sarge. Indeed, it would be
nice to have overlap in the supported versions between one release and the
next, though this doesn't
On Friday 29 December 2006 03:10, Steve Langasek wrote:
It was? I don't remember this... I certainly wanted to make sure etch
didn't release with ancient, lingering versions of python like 2.1 and
2.2, but from a release POV I never had strong feelings about getting
rid of python 2.3, which
On Sun, 2006-12-24 at 02:22 -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 00:38 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
To conclude, the support of multiple python versions is not meant at
all as an excuse for lazy debian maintainers
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 00:38 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
To conclude, the support of multiple python versions is not meant at
all as an excuse for lazy debian maintainers depending on python for
not following upstream python development.
Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
On Wed, 2006-12-20 at 19:51 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 11:17:03AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
The python team has apparently decreed that python 2.3 will not be in
etch. This forces every package to use the new version. Surely
On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 12:38:05AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
An explicitely stated goal of the release team was to reduce the
number of supported python versions for the next stable release. We
did include three python versions for sarge (2.[123]).
Actually, four: 2.4 is also in sarge
On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 00:38 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
To conclude, the support of multiple python versions is not meant at
all as an excuse for lazy debian maintainers depending on python for
not following upstream python development.
Are you calling me lazy for not fixing a bug that you
On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 00:38 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
An explicitely stated goal of the release team was to reduce the
number of supported python versions for the next stable release. We
did include three python versions for sarge (2.[123]). To reduce that
count we do have to drop 2.3
are right, you cannot upgrade to python
(2.3) without also upgrading to wxgtk-python (2.3) or de-installing
wxgtk-python (2.2).
Sure you can. dpkg --force-depends -i python_*.deb will do it for you.
If you want something bad enough, and don't mind breaking things, anything's
possible.
Cheers,
aj
upgrading wxgtk-python may break stuff.
actually, if the dependencies are right, you cannot upgrade to python
(2.3) without also upgrading to wxgtk-python (2.3) or de-installing
wxgtk-python (2.2).
Sure you can. dpkg --force-depends -i python_*.deb will do it for you.
If you want something
On Sun, Aug 17, 2003 at 11:22:43AM +0200, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
| On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 08:33:26AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
| Now, I could do the dependency on python (= 2.2), python (2.3) thing.
| But what would that gain me or users? I see no benefit there, other than
| people
On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 11:44:22PM -0400, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
The negative effect for the users is that you can't upgrade python
while wxgtk-python is installed so you can't try out the
latest-and-greatest python in the meantime. This is the issue at
hand.
Sure you can:
$
. This is the issue at
hand.
Sure you can:
$ sudo apt-get install python2.3
The dependency stuff merely notes that upgrading python without also
upgrading wxgtk-python may break stuff.
actually, if the dependencies are right, you cannot upgrade to python
(2.3) without also upgrading
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.
--
see
Joey Hess writes:
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
On Sat, Aug 09, 2003 at 02:04:52AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
Joey Hess writes:
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
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 11:47:48AM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
There is an alternative... only support one version of python... and be
stuck at python 2.1 until everything uses it, or lose things like zope
etc.
Alternatively the python developers could try to keep backwards
compatibility :-|
, but if
Debian can go to Python 2.3 within days of it being released without
breaking anything else, I'd say thats pretty damn impressive.
...
-[ Domenico Andreoli, aka cavok
--[ http://filibusta.crema.unimi.it/~cavok/gpgkey.asc
---[ 3A0F 2F80 F79C 678A 8936 4FEE 0677 9033 A20E BC50
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 10:31:53PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
Last weekend, python 2.3 was released.
With the next python2.3 upload, python2.3 becomes the default python
version.
Am I the only one who has a disgusting reminiscence of netscape*.* packages
every time python* is mentioned? :P
hmmm.. just curious... why?
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 11:18:53AM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 10:31:53PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
Last weekend, python 2.3 was released.
With the next python2.3 upload, python2.3 becomes the default python
version.
Am I the only one
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 11:18:53AM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
Am I the only one who has a disgusting reminiscence of netscape*.*
packages every time python* is mentioned? :P
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 02:59:00PM +0200, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
hmmm.. just curious... why?
The short of it: he's
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 09:33:26AM -0500, Chad Walstrom wrote:
Am I the only one who has a disgusting reminiscence of netscape*.*
packages every time python* is mentioned? :P
hmmm.. just curious... why?
The short of it: he's joking. Note the smiley. Even though package
names that
was going to post nice job everyone... the Python Policy
looks like it is working. There are still a few niggly things, but if
Debian can go to Python 2.3 within days of it being released without
breaking anything else, I'd say thats pretty damn impressive.
I'd be curious to know how other distro's
Last weekend, python 2.3 was released. For an overview see
http://python.org/2.3/highlights.html
With the next python2.3 upload, python2.3 becomes the default python
version. Some packages become uninstallable until they are converted
to the new version. In this time you should not update
24 matches
Mail list logo
