On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 01:48:11AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One example is .config maintainer scripts, some of which are quite complex
and worth writing in a higher-level language than shell.
This is surely true; Steve Langasek asked
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 01:04:25PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Granted if it is a real issue, then why not use perl? Yes, I hate
perl too, but really, the argument hey, people like Python too
implies that we should have a scheme interpreter
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 10:38:08PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Ok, but now I'm confused: why is python-minimal needed in Essential?
Why not simply depend on it straightforwardly?
Because there are parts of the packaging system where there is no way to
express such a dependency
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:40:55AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
I asked this question earlier, and no one answered. Are there .config
scripts being written in python today in Ubuntu? (Hmm, where are the python
bindings for debconf, and what ensures that they're installed?)
No, not yet. The
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 02:05:40PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 03:34:58PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
If we followed the same method for python-base, then we would
a) instroduce python-base iff we had some package(s) written in python
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 03:34:58PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
If we followed the same method for python-base, then we would
a) instroduce python-base iff we had some package(s) written in python
that we wanted in the base system (apt-listchanges comes to mind)
b) include only the modules
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 09:23:30PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
* Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-01-19 12:45]:
Please don't do this; it implies that python-minimal would be part
of base, but not full python, and this is something that python
upstream explicitly objects to.
Why
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 05:58:20PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
That said, I don't really understand why it's Ok for Ubuntu to do this but
not us.
Ubuntu never installs python-minimal without python, even in base.
--
- mdz
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 06:38:55PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 03:18:48PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 05:58:20PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
That said, I don't really understand why it's Ok for Ubuntu to do this but
not us.
Ubuntu
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 12:16:55AM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
Just to clarify, because I'm also confused and genuinely curious... you
guys use the minimal package during bootstrapping or something and then by
the end of the installation process you will necessarily have the full
python
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 12:12:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
* allowing us to easily use python (as well as C, C++ and perl) for programs
in the base system
* allowing us to provide python early on installs to make users happier
Please note that it is against upstream's explicit
On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 01:31:25PM +0200, Norbert Tretkowski wrote:
severity 315152 wishlist
thanks
* Matt Zimmerman wrote:
Package: bzr
Version: 0.0.5-1
Severity: important
Justification: fails to build from source
python2.3 setup.py clean --all
make: python2.3: Command
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 03:23:37PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
In a perfect world, somehow the correct gcc would be used (to make sure
C++ ABI problems don't happen). Not sure if we can have that perfect world
or not; see below.
No, we can't. Not today, and definitely not a year ago.
On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 01:11:56AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
I've managed to get python-apt (and thus apt-listchanges) working again
on my testing system. What a PITA...
Anyway, I first just tried to recompile python-apt-0.5.4.3. Compile went
fine, but the first attempt to execute
On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 12:28:30PM +0200, Bastian Kleineidam wrote:
On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 01:40:12AM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
If you had wanted to find out the answer before sending this to
debian-devel, you would not have had to look very far.
bugs.debian.org/python-apt has
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 01:05:37AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 06:45:21PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
According to 2.4.2, the package should build correctly. It did.
However, it didn't run because you had an incompatible version of apt
installed. The dependency
On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 09:22:51PM +0200, Florent Rougon wrote:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Python 1.5.2 (#0, Jan 13 2002, 13:19:04) [GCC 2.95.4 20011223 (Debian
prerelease)] on linux2
Copyright 1991-1995 Stichting Mathematisch Centrum, Amsterdam
''.lower()
Traceback
On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 12:33:55PM +0100, Christian Kurz wrote:
On 17/02/02, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
and this one package with one set of install/remove scripts supports
emacs20, emacs21, xemacs21. When a new emacs is installed, the
installed elisp packages are byte-compiled
On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 07:02:02PM +0100, Bastian Kleineidam wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 12:48:02PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
Good plan; why not do that for python? How about a
/usr/sbin/python-pkgtool --install package
/usr/sbin/python-pkgtool --remove package
Look at http
On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 01:35:25PM -0500, Jim Penny wrote:
Objection 1: Autocompilation can result in progams that compile but
do not work as expected.
Examples: scope rule changes. Inheritance Changes. Arithmetic Changes.
This has nothing to do with the organization of the
20 matches
Mail list logo
