Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Antonio Terceiro
* Package name: python-whitenoise
Version : 3.2.1
Upstream Author : David Evans
* URL : http://whitenoise.evans.io
* License : MIT/Expat
Programming Lang: Python
Description : static file serving
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 10:47:37PM +0200, Elena ``of Valhalla'' wrote:
> On 2016-08-18 at 22:27:42 +, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> > * Files-Excluded in d/copyright doesn't list all the files that are
> > removed (at least according to `git diff --stat
> > upstream/0.9..upstream/0.9+ds0`)
> >
On 2016-08-18 at 22:27:42 +, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> FYI: no need to explicitly CC d-mentors@, RFSes are somehow sent there
> anyway.
ack
> This is DPMT, where the usage of git is mandated, so I expect the git
> repository to match the generated .dsc (hence I'm ignoring mentors here)
it does
Hi Sandro,
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 11:49:25AM +0100, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> > For example, I have a module (which supports both Python 2 and 3), but
> > the only user of this module is an app (which is Python 3 only).
>
> then this should be an internal module, installed in /usr/share/
> and not imp
On Aug 19, 2016, at 08:19 AM, Sandro Tosi wrote:
>I got a feeling we are somehow discouraging the introduction of
>python2 package in unstable (it was also discussed at the BoF).
Hi Sandro,
Just to clarify my own opinion, for *libraries* which upstream supports both
Python 2 and Python 3, we sho
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 11:42 AM, Dmitry Shachnev wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 08:19:46AM +0100, Sandro Tosi wrote:
>> does anyone else agrees with this view? should we clarify that, when
>> available, python2 modules must be provided (along with their py3k)?
>
> I disagree with th
Hi all,
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 08:19:46AM +0100, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> does anyone else agrees with this view? should we clarify that, when
> available, python2 modules must be provided (along with their py3k)?
I disagree with the “must” wording.
For example, I have a module (which supports both
Ok, thank you for the explanation and the quick response :).
Cheers,
Anthony
On Fri, 2016-08-19 at 11:16 +0200, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> Control: tags -1 wontfix
>
> > I've been using dh-python to build a package and I've had to add a version
> > dependency in my setup.py (requests >= 2.4.2) but
On 2016-08-19 08:19, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> does anyone else agrees with this view? should we clarify that, when
> available, python2 modules must be provided (along with their py3k)?
Yes.
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 08:19:46 +0100, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> I got a feeling we are somehow discouraging the introduction of
> python2 package in unstable (it was also discussed at the BoF).
>
> while i can see why we dont want to introduce new python2-only
> package, i feel that just providing a
Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding
this Bug report.
This is an automatically generated reply to let you know your message
has been received.
Your message is being forwarded to the package maintainers and other
interested parties for their attention; they will rep
Processing control commands:
> tags -1 wontfix
Bug #834809 [dh-python] dh-python: requires.txt versions ignored when writing
control
Added tag(s) wontfix.
--
834809: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=834809
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Control: tags -1 wontfix
> I've been using dh-python to build a package and I've had to add a version
> dependency in my setup.py (requests >= 2.4.2) but this isn't being picked up
> and added to the debian/control.
dh_python{2,3} ignores version on purpose. It does more than that, it
removes rec
Hi,
2016-08-19 9:19 GMT+02:00 Sandro Tosi :
> does anyone else agrees with this view? should we clarify that, when
> available, python2 modules must be provided (along with their py3k)?
>
I agree. Nobody will move to Py3 because Debian doesn't have Py2 module.
--
Best regards
Ondřej Nový
Ema
- Mail original -
> De: "Sandro Tosi"
> À: "debian-python"
> Envoyé: Vendredi 19 Août 2016 09:19:46
> Objet: on keep providing python 2 packages
>
> I got a feeling we are somehow discouraging the introduction of
> python2 package in unstable (it was also discussed at the BoF).
Don't
I got a feeling we are somehow discouraging the introduction of
python2 package in unstable (it was also discussed at the BoF).
while i can see why we dont want to introduce new python2-only
package, i feel that just providing a py3k pkg while the module is
also py2 compatible is a disservice to o
16 matches
Mail list logo
