Re: question on having . as LOAD_PATH (ruby)

The following is a full posting I made to debian-security@lists.debian.org: At Sat, 07 Jan 2006 21:44:24 +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote: Hi, Hi, I am wondering what the security implications of having a LOAD_PATH that includes '.' is. Gerenally speaking, having . in any path

Re: python's gettext.gettext broken, use gettext.lgettext

string).encode(locale.nl_langinfo(CODESET)) as opposed to print _(some string) (if _ is bound to lgettext). regards, junichi -- Junichi Uekawa, Debian Developer http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/ 183A 70FC 4732 1B87 57A5 CE82 D837 7D4E E81E 55C1 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL

python's gettext.gettext broken, use gettext.lgettext

).encode(gettext_encoding) +_ = lgettext Correct me if I'm missing something, since python is not my best language. regards, junichi -- Junichi Uekawa, Debian Developer http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/ 183A 70FC 4732 1B87 57A5 CE82 D837 7D4E E81E 55C1 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email

Re: Bug#221523: Causes build failures

The configure script is checking for 'python' script. What was the original reason for the 'recommends' instead of 'depends'? It's not really clear to me. some people wanted to be able to keep the default python version at version 2.2, but install packages from unstable, when the

python policy is unclear on whether python programs should be arch all or arch any

. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junichi Uekawa http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer GPG Fingerprint : 17D6 120E 4455 1832 9423 7447 3059 BF92 CD37 56F4

Re: Python-2.1 becoming Debian's default Python version

Matthias Klose [EMAIL PROTECTED] immo vero scripsit Please Cc: me, because I am not on the list. python-ecasound I have been looking at python 2.1, and python2.1 debian/copyright file tells me that it is not GPL compatible. Is it still so? regards, junichi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]