Re: zope, zope-popyda, psycopg and python1.5-{,egenix-}mxdatetime

Joel Rosdahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 1. build python1.5 versions of all egenix mx packages (easier and more >consequent, but also bloatier) python1.5 versions of all egenix mx packages are now in incoming. Joel -- Joel Rosdahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: zope, zope-popyda, psycopg and python1.5-{,egenix-}mxdatetime

Federico Di Gregorio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, 2001-11-20 at 21:24, Jérôme Marant wrote: > > Joel Rosdahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > Sounds like you guys could use a python1.5 version of > > > mxdatetime, then... > > t

Re: zope, zope-popyda, psycopg and python1.5-{,egenix-}mxdatetime

opg for a while? > > at least until python1.5 exits from debian. Sounds like you guys could use a python1.5 version of mxdatetime, then... I'm willing to maintain such a package, but the best solution is maybe that one of you creates a separate python1.5 mxdatetime package as you like and also maintains it? Regards, Joel -- Joel Rosdahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (PGP and GPG keys available)

zope, zope-popyda, psycopg and python1.5-{,egenix-}mxdatetime

Good evening, Does anyone have opinions on this? Is there a need for a python1.5-mxdatetime (based on the old mxdatetime) or a python1.5-egenix-mxdatetime (based on the new egenix mxdatetime)? --- Begin Message --- On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 07:33:59PM +0100, Joel Rosdahl wrote: > [EMAIL PROTEC

Re: what to do about python-kjbuckets

thon2.1-kjbuckets and python2.2-kjbuckets are now in incoming. (Same for python*-egenix-*; I've built python2.2-* versions too.) As Matthias Klose said, do we really need python1.5 versions of kjbuckets (or python-egenix-*, for that matter)? Just say the word and I'll package them.

what to do about python-kjbuckets

ber bump.) 4) Use an epoch version, i.e. 1:2.2. (Ugh.) 5) Use date in version, i.e. 2.2.port.20011104 or similar. (Best solution I can come up with.) Opinions? Regards, Joel [1] Found at: http://www.pythonpros.com/arw/kjbuckets/ [2] Available here: http://phd.pp.ru/Software/

Re: Packaging python-egenix-mx*

Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Federico Di Gregorio writes: > > On Sun, 2001-10-28 at 22:34, Joel Rosdahl wrote: > > > 3. As the policy mandates, I have made the packages depend on > > > > > >python (>= 2.1), python (<< 2.

Re: Packaging python-egenix-mx*

e had comments about it). So it's not much work for me to switch to the 2.1.3-1 scheme again, and if both Python 2.2 (in some form) will be included in woody I definitely will use it (the scheme, that is). Regards, Joel -- Joel Rosdahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (PGP and GPG keys available)

Re: Packaging python-egenix-mx*

Federico Di Gregorio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sun, 2001-10-28 at 22:34, Joel Rosdahl wrote: > > python-egenix-mx-base-dev > > note that the location of the header files was wrong in my patch > (/usr/include/pythonx.y/mx is much better, imho.) Agreed and chan

Packaging python-egenix-mx*

Regards, Joel -- Joel Rosdahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (PGP and GPG keys available)

Re: (2nd try) Final draft of Python Policy (hopefully ;-)

just builds 2.1 and 2.2 packages? Joel -- Joel Rosdahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (PGP and GPG keys available)

Re: Debian Python policy & Upgrade Path (draft/proposal)

Ricardo Javier Cardenes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I have fixed that, but not uploaded the package while the policy is > on debate. I suppose this is the case of other maintainers too... Yep. Joel -- Joel Rosdahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (PGP and GPG keys available)