On Tue, 2005-10-18 at 08:23, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mardi 18 octobre 2005 à 02:57 +0200, "Martin v. Löwis" a écrit :
> > Josselin Mouette wrote:
[...]
> But I'm not talking about python-gtk here, I'm talking about those
> hundreds of modules actually used by zero or one binary packages. Do we
Le mardi 18 octobre 2005 à 10:24 +0200, "Martin v. Löwis" a écrit :
> > Even in a situation like the current one, when we're stuck with 2.3 as
> > the default when there's 2.4 available, there are only a few python
> > packages which actually need the 2.4 version.
>
> What do you mean, "actually
To what cost? How many gigabytes of mirror space and bandwidth are we
wasting with python2.X-libprout stuff nobody ever uses?
I don't know. What is the answer to this question? I wouldn't expect
it to be more than 1GiB per mirror, though, likely much less. On
i386, for example, the "useless" pyt
Le mardi 18 octobre 2005 à 02:57 +0200, "Martin v. Löwis" a écrit :
> Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Apart from a typo and the FSF address, the changes are about which
> > packaging variants are mandated, recommending to provide only one
> > python-foo package for each module, except when depending ap
4 matches
Mail list logo
