Re: [SUSPECTED SPAM] Re: Python 3.7 or 3.6 in Buster

On Monday, November 05, 2018 08:31:56 PM Jerome Kieffer wrote: > On Mon, 05 Nov 2018 12:26:41 -0500 > > Scott Kitterman wrote: > > I only found out about it due to an upstream bug report on OS X. No one > > in > > Debian (or Ubuntu) reported it. > >

Re: Python 3.7 or 3.6 in Buster

On Monday, November 05, 2018 05:31:36 PM Ondrej Novy wrote: > Hi, > > po 5. 11. 2018 v 9:09 odesílatel Thomas Goirand napsal: > > Do other fellow DD also think it's kind of ok to keep 3.7 in Buster? > > +1 for keeping 3.7 in Buster and switch defaults to 3.7. I recently got burned by changes

Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) [phase 1 DONE]

It appears to have been deleted. Scott K On August 15, 2018 1:01:50 AM UTC, eamanu15 wrote: >Hi! > >What's up with the page? https://wiki.debian.org/Python/GitPackagingPQ > >Regards! > > >El dom., 12 de ago. de 2018 a la(s) 15:21, Dmitry Shachnev < >mity...@debian.org> escribió: > >> Hi, >> >>

Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) [phase 1 DONE]

On August 11, 2018 1:54:41 PM UTC, Ondrej Novy wrote: >Hi, > >pá 10. 8. 2018 v 22:29 odesílatel Scott Kitterman > >napsal: > >> Thanks. I'm glad more is going on than people arguing about what's >wrong >> with the tool we aren't going to use anymore. >>

Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) [phase 1 DONE]

On August 8, 2018 2:10:59 PM UTC, Ondrej Novy wrote: >Hi, > >pá 3. 8. 2018 v 5:06 odesílatel Ondrej Novy napsal: > >> 1. convert git-dpm -> gbp >> > >this is done. Thanks. I'm glad more is going on than people arguing about what's wrong with the tool we aren't going to use anymore. What

Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change)

On August 3, 2018 3:51:00 AM UTC, "W. Martin Borgert" wrote: >On 2018-08-03 11:06, Ondrej Novy wrote: >> 2. change default branch to debian/master > >How about changing "upstream" to "upstream/latest" (for upstream >releases, typically for unstable) and "upstream/master" (for >following

Re: kivy package in trouble?

On July 18, 2018 1:00:15 PM UTC, Dean Serenevy wrote: > >Hello, I am a user of the python3-kivy package and just noticed that >kivy is no longer listed in buster [1]. > >Is help needed? (I am not a DD, but I am willing to test and submit >packaging patches if it would help.) > > >[1]

Stepping down from python-defaults maintenance

I've removed myself from Uploaders in git for both python-defaults and python3-defaults. Scott K

Re: Dask sourceless javascript passed by me.

On June 6, 2018 4:42:44 AM UTC, Paul Wise wrote: >On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 12:30 PM, Diane Trout wrote: > >> I was planning on patching the references to the .html files out and >> removing them in the debian/rules files. >> >> But is that enough? > >That doesn't fix the orig.tar.gz. > >I would

Re: Broken dbgsym packages for Python 3

On Sunday, June 03, 2018 09:26:58 PM Scott Talbert wrote: > Hi, > > I've got a package (wxpython4.0) that builds modules for both Python 2.7 > and Python 3. When I rebuilt the package in early May, I started getting > the lintian warning debug-file-with-no-debug-symbols for the Python 3 > dbgsym

Re: hangups

On May 24, 2018 2:50:16 AM UTC, Diane Trout wrote: >Hi, > >I'd packaged a hangouts client called hangups for myself a while ago, >and I thought I'd upload it to Debian. > >https://hangups.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ > >I built the package so most of the python code is in a

Re: Updated PEP 394 (python and python2 commands)

On May 22, 2018 7:24:12 PM UTC, Thomas Goirand wrote: >On 05/20/2018 11:49 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote: >> On 05/17/2018 08:53 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: >>> PEP 394 [1] saw an update in April 2018 [2], the diffs at [3]. >>> >>> The most important change from my point of view is

Re: Updated PEP 394 (python and python2 commands)

On May 20, 2018 9:49:27 PM UTC, Thomas Goirand wrote: >On 05/17/2018 08:53 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: >> PEP 394 [1] saw an update in April 2018 [2], the diffs at [3]. >> >> The most important change from my point of view is >> >> -* It is suggested that even

Re: Updated PEP 394 (python and python2 commands)

On Friday, May 18, 2018 07:29:19 PM Matthias Klose wrote: > On 18.05.2018 18:14, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > On Friday, May 18, 2018 11:31:37 AM Matthias Klose wrote: > >> On 18.05.2018 05:19, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: > >>> [Matthias Klose, 2018-05-17] > >>>

Re: Updated PEP 394 (python and python2 commands)

On Friday, May 18, 2018 11:31:37 AM Matthias Klose wrote: > On 18.05.2018 05:19, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: > > [Matthias Klose, 2018-05-17] > > > >> PEP 394 [1] saw an update in April 2018 [2], the diffs at [3]. > >> > >> The most important change from my point of view is > >> > >> -* It is

Re: Addition in lintian to warn about debian/pyversions file

On Monday, May 14, 2018 10:51:45 AM Joseph Herlant wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 3:14 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote: > > As Ondrej wrote, there's only a few packages having this. How about we > > just do a few NMUs as a team to fix that completely in the archive? > > I

Re: Remove wiki version of the python policy?

On Monday, May 14, 2018 10:55:36 AM Joseph Herlant wrote: > Hi guys, > > I noticed that https://wiki.debian.org/Python/Policy is full of > obsolete ways to do. > Is it worth updating it or should I just remove everything there and > redirect to

Re: Mass-commit fix of lintian ancient-python-version-field

On Friday, May 11, 2018 09:33:20 AM Joseph Herlant wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, May 11, 2018, 1:10 AM Ondrej Novy wrote: > > no problem, so just remove that file? > > > > > > https://github.com/onovy/onovy-mass/commit/2c24adf1ecd8fc934328f69c75b2b2d > > 9256ee3c9 > > > > Are we

Re: tablib module: ok to migrate repo from openstack to DPMT?

On Sunday, April 29, 2018 04:32:51 PM Joseph Herlant wrote: > Hi guys, > > I need to upgrade python-tablib (and build the python3 version) to > upgrade django-tables2. > > Based on https://bugs.debian.org/865855 it seems the openstack team > don't want to manage it anymore. > > Do you mind if I

Testing Django Packages, was: Re: [Python-modules-team] Bug#896429: python3-django-tables2: django_tables2 fails to import

On April 21, 2018 8:56:52 PM UTC, Thomas Goirand wrote: >On 04/21/2018 08:23 AM, Helmut Grohne wrote: ... >> After the dust has settled, I can follow up on d-devel with a summary >> that suggests filtering this particular django exception. > >Again, instead you could setup a

Re: Request to (re)join DPMT

On Tuesday, April 17, 2018 10:34:25 PM Raoul Snyman wrote: > Hi! > > I was previously part of DPMT on Alioth, and I'd like to be added to the > team on Salsa to continue working on python-pysword. > > My Alioth and Salsa logins are: superfly-guest > > I have read the DPMT Policy >

Re: Questions about salsa and Git

On April 10, 2018 7:24:18 AM UTC, "Guðjón Guðjónsson" wrote: >Hi list > >I have to admit that I have never become comfortable with the Debian >Git >workflow >but I know I have to learn to use it. > >Following the advice on

Re: Questions about salsa and Git

On April 10, 2018 7:24:18 AM UTC, "Guðjón Guðjónsson" wrote: >Hi list > >I have to admit that I have never become comfortable with the Debian >Git >workflow >but I know I have to learn to use it. > >Following the advice on

Re: the new PyPI, coming next month

What replaces gpg for ensuring integrity of the uploaded code? Scott K On April 1, 2018 2:15:54 AM UTC, Sumana Harihareswara wrote: >Debian-Python experts, > >I'm writing to you in hopes you will forward this to the right places, >and file relevant bugs against uscan/watch,

Re: Could someone check new python module: mastodon

On Friday, March 30, 2018 11:20:30 PM Craig Small wrote: > Hello, > I packaged the Mastodon python bindings which let you communicate to a > Mastodon server through its API. > > While I have packaged many Debian packages, it is my first Python module. I > believe it is ok and lintian seems

Re: DPMT; salsa access

On Friday, March 30, 2018 01:53:15 PM Julian Taylor wrote: > hi, > Please add me to the DPMT group on salsa.debian.org. I am already a > member of DPMT. > Username: jtaylor-guest Done. Scott K

Re: PAPT and DPMT membership request for moschlar-guest

On Monday, March 26, 2018 10:49:58 PM Piotr Ożarowski wrote: > Hi, > > [Moritz Schlarb, 2018-02-15] > > > please also add my user "moschlar-guest" to the respective Groups on > > Salsa. > > looks like my thread is broken, I cannot find referenced emails. Do you > accept our policy? Which

Re: How to package my python module ?

https://wiki.debian.org/Python#Encouraged_practices On March 16, 2018 9:16:23 PM UTC, "慕冬亮" wrote: >Hi all, > >after I read the material Ben sent to me, I have a understanding of >the whole process. > >At first, I need to package my python module as a Debian package. >

Re: Consistent location for library documentation

Look at Debian Policy, section 12.3 Additional Documentation. The answer is there. Scott K On Saturday, March 03, 2018 09:25:20 AM Christopher Hoskin wrote: > Dear Ben, > > Did you get an answer to this? > > I've just noticed a change in behavior of dh_installdocs between > debhelper compat

Re: PAPT migrated to Git on Salsa

On Saturday, February 24, 2018 11:49:52 PM Stefano Rivera wrote: > Hi debian-python (2018.02.24_20:13:14_+0200) > > > 1. Packages that have never been uploaded aren't really in a useful > > > >state, yet (e.g. alienfeed) > > These are the packages that aren't in sid (either never uploaded

Re: Certbot DNS Dependencies

On February 23, 2018 11:14:50 PM UTC, Harlan Lieberman-Berg wrote: >Hello DPMT! > >In order to package some of the certbot DNS plugins, there are a >couple of dependencies that currently aren't packaged for Debian. > >I'm happy to do the leg work for their initial

Re: Help proposed for migration of PAPT repos to Salsa

On Saturday, February 24, 2018 01:03:02 AM Stefano Rivera wrote: > Hi Scott (2018.02.23_23:46:21_+0200) > > > I think I'll just push them straight to Salsa, and we can review the > > result there. Sound sensible? > > Here's one package: > https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/applications/beets >

Re: Help proposed for migration of PAPT repos to Salsa

On Thursday, February 22, 2018 04:37:39 PM Joseph Herlant wrote: > Hi, > > I've seen that there are some SVN repositories for PAPT on alioth and > I was wondering if you'd want help to move them to Salsa. > > I'm familiar with the procedure to transfert a repo from svn to git > without loosing

Re: Salsa Vcs-* mass-commits

On Monday, February 12, 2018 02:41:58 PM Ondrej Novy wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to mass-commit to all DPMT's projects this: > > https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/modules/python-m3u8/commit/f2683222bb93 > 6c4f81047285fad2bb7a32e9087f > > Any thoughts? Looks good to me. Scott K

Re: PAPT Package Status

On February 11, 2018 6:15:43 PM UTC, Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com> wrote: >While thinking about the migration of PAPT to git/salsa, I decided to >take a >quick look at the size of the task. Currently there are 199 packages >in the >PAPT svn. > >Of the

PAPT Package Status

While thinking about the migration of PAPT to git/salsa, I decided to take a quick look at the size of the task. Currently there are 199 packages in the PAPT svn. Of them, 27 have not been touched since jwilk did a mass commit for "Use canonical URIs for Vcs-* fields" four years ago. I

Re: pyapi-gitlab vs python-gitlab

On February 9, 2018 2:24:13 AM UTC, Paul Wise wrote: >Hi all, > >I wanted to use the python-gitlab cli but I noticed it wasn't in the >Debian packages and then I noticed that we have pyapi-gitlab as >python*-gitlab packages instead of python-gitlab. > >I'm not sure what the

Re: Package name of src:fontmake

On January 27, 2018 2:05:59 PM UTC, Yao Wei wrote: >Hi, > >We at Fonts Team are packaging utilities for building fonts from >Glyphs.app and UFO format to OTF/TTF, and we are trying to align our >package to Python Policy. > >The packaging effort is in Salsa:

Re: Removal of pyqwt5

On January 9, 2018 10:49:39 AM UTC, "Guðjón Guðjónsson" wrote: >Hi list > >I would like to close bug: #787300 <787...@bugs.debian.org> > >and ask for removal of pyqwt5 plus some more Qt4 only packages. But I >cannot find > >info on how to ask for removal of

Re: Python Programs policy (§4.2) requires dependency on python2 which doesn't exist

On October 31, 2017 12:52:43 PM EDT, Don Armstrong wrote: >The Debian python policy §4.2 has a MUST directive for a dependency on >python2, which does not exist at all. > >I'm guessing that this was at some point in time a virtual package or >similar provided by the default

Re: git-dpm (was Re: Bug#729956: Forwarded upstream)

On Thursday, September 07, 2017 09:28:11 AM Brian May wrote: > On 2017-09-07 08:42, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > Conveniently, we already decided to switch: > > > > https://wiki.debian.org/Python/GitPackagingPQ > > It was annoying me that these instructions were miss

Re: MBF for deprecating Python2 usage

On Tuesday, August 08, 2017 08:58:04 PM Ole Streicher wrote: > Diane Trout writes: > >> What I am opposing is the suggestion to install, in the near to > >> medium > >> term, a command of exactly the same name that has subtly similar but > >> incompatible behaviour, when that

Re: a few quick questions on gbp pq workflow

On August 7, 2017 5:37:34 PM EDT, Diane Trout wrote: > >> >> Why would you need to repack a tarball just because it contains >> prebuilt docs (non-DFSG-free licensed documentation aside)? I'm all > >I've occasionally repacked a tarball because upstream included minified >jquery

Re: a few quick questions on gbp pq workflow

On August 6, 2017 5:24:59 PM EDT, Ondrej Novy wrote: >Hi, > >2017-08-06 14:53 GMT-04:00 Jeremy Stanley : > >> Why would you need to repack a tarball just because it contains >> prebuilt docs (non-DFSG-free licensed documentation aside)? I'm all >> > >Lintian

Re: a few quick questions on gbp pq workflow

On August 6, 2017 2:11:13 PM EDT, Ondrej Novy <n...@ondrej.org> wrote: >Hi, > >2017-08-06 12:26 GMT-04:00 Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com>: >> >> I don't work on the OpenStack packages, but I do maintain a >reasonable >> number of Python packages

Re: a few quick questions on gbp pq workflow

On August 6, 2017 11:37:51 AM EDT, Jeremy Stanley wrote: >On 2017-08-06 10:44:36 -0400 (-0400), Allison Randal wrote: >> The OpenStack packaging team has been sprinting at DebCamp, and >> we're finally ready to move all general Python dependencies for >> OpenStack over to

Re: MBF for deprecating Python2 usage

On August 4, 2017 9:37:18 PM EDT, Barry Warsaw <ba...@debian.org> wrote: >Scott Kitterman wrote: > >> If the primary concern is what happens when a user types "python", >then can we >> address that in command-not-found and leave /usr/bin/python out of >

Re: Uploading Python modules which drop support for Python 2?

On August 4, 2017 8:00:27 PM EDT, "W. Martin Borgert" wrote: >Hi team, > >pysolar upstream version 0.7 dropped support for Python 2, so I >did not upload it for stretch. I'm considering upload for buster >now. What do you think? > >Cheers If there are no rdepends, I think

Re: MBF for deprecating Python2 usage

On Friday, August 04, 2017 10:13:00 AM ba...@debian.org wrote: > On Aug 3, 2017, at 23:23, Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com> wrote: > > Read it. I remain completely convinced that /usr/bin/python pointing at a > > python3 version is utterly wrong and a disservic

Re: MBF for deprecating Python2 usage

On August 4, 2017 6:49:23 AM EDT, Matthias Klose wrote: >On 03.08.2017 21:08, ba...@debian.org wrote: >> On Aug 3, 2017, at 17:57, Matthias Klose wrote: >>> >>> While at DebCamp, Stefano Rivera and I sat down to analyze what >needs to be done >>> to deprecate

Re: MBF for deprecating Python2 usage

Dropped d-devel. On August 3, 2017 9:08:10 PM EDT, ba...@debian.org wrote: >On Aug 3, 2017, at 17:57, Matthias Klose wrote: >> >> While at DebCamp, Stefano Rivera and I sat down to analyze what needs >to be done >> to deprecate Python2 usage within the distribution. It might

Re: python3 for pysrs

On July 17, 2017 8:27:45 AM EDT, "Sandro Knauß" wrote: >Hey, > >> This is work you're doing in collaboration with the ‘pysrs’ upstream >> developers, right? You are aiming to get users to test this, and get >it >> into a release, before doing any of this in Debian. Is that

Re: Bug#866335: Python3.6 plans​ for Buster

On Wednesday, July 05, 2017 10:24:26 AM Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > Hi Scott, > > On 05/07/17 06:25, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > On Wednesday, June 28, 2017 11:19:37 PM Scott Kitterman wrote: > >> On Friday, June 23, 2017 02:09:34 PM Scott Kitterman wrote: > >&g

Re: git-dpm: remove a patch

On Wednesday, July 05, 2017 08:51:34 AM Vincent Bernat wrote: > Hey! > > How to remove a patch with git-dpm? > > I have tried: > > git-dpm c-p > git reset --hard HEAD~1 > git-dpm u-p > > And got: > > git-dpm: Calling merge-patched-into-debian first... > git-dpm: ERROR: cowardly refusing to

Re: Python3.6 plans​ for Buster

On Wednesday, June 28, 2017 11:19:37 PM Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Friday, June 23, 2017 02:09:34 PM Scott Kitterman wrote: > > On Saturday, June 17, 2017 04:20:27 AM Scott Kitterman wrote: ... > > > As a reminder (and for anyone new) we'll do the transition to python3.6 >

Re: Python3.6 plans​ for Buster

On Friday, June 23, 2017 02:09:34 PM Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Saturday, June 17, 2017 04:20:27 AM Scott Kitterman wrote: > > Python3.6 is already in Unstable and I expect to see it in Testing soon > > after Stretch is released. > > > > I've just now uploaded a

Bug#866335: transition: python3-defaults

Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: transition We would like to add python3.6 as a supported python3 version along with python3.5. This is not exactly like a normal transition. Only transient unbuildability of higher level packages

Re: Python3.6 plans​ for Buster

On Saturday, June 17, 2017 04:20:27 AM Scott Kitterman wrote: > Python3.6 is already in Unstable and I expect to see it in Testing soon > after Stretch is released. > > I've just now uploaded a version of python3-defaults to Experimental that > adds python3.6 as as supported (

Python3.6 plans​ for Buster

Python3.6 is already in Unstable and I expect to see it in Testing soon after Stretch is released. I've just now uploaded a version of python3-defaults to Experimental that adds python3.6 as as supported (but not default) python3. If you have binary extensions packaged, please start testing

Re: Ad-hoc Debian Python BoF at PyCon US 2017

On Friday, June 09, 2017 08:32:38 PM Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Jun 06, 2017, at 10:57 AM, Sandro Tosi wrote: > >if we plan (and it looks like we do) to support and distribute 2.7 > >with buster, why not support it *properly*? what's the point of > >deprecating python2.7? either we ship it or not,

Re: PAPT git migration

On May 31, 2017 7:16:39 PM EDT, Simon McVittie wrote: >On Thu, 01 Jun 2017 at 00:16:45 +0200, Stefano Rivera wrote: >> Hi Barry (2017.05.31_23:32:20_+0200) >> > $ gbp pq export >> > - This doesn't work until you at least do a first pq import, but >now I see the >> >

Re: Request to join DPMT

On Thursday, May 11, 2017 10:14:12 AM Colin Watson wrote: > Hi, > > I'd like to join the Debian Python Modules Team. I maintain a couple of > module packages already that probably ought to be moved under the DPMT > umbrella (six, python-tblib), and I'm upstream for some others (e.g. >

Re: [Python-modules-commits] [python-cpuinfo] 02/02: Import Debian changes 3.0.0-1

On April 17, 2017 12:20:36 PM EDT, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: >On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 12:12:11PM -0400, Sandro Tosi wrote: >> are we really suggesting to create a separate binary package, for a >> single script, not even 400 bytes (in py-cpuinfo case, but i bet >there >> are more

Re: Fwd: next version of csvkit

On Saturday, April 01, 2017 05:12:38 PM Ghislain Vaillant wrote: > On Sat, 2017-04-01 at 15:55 +0000, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > On April 1, 2017 3:42:50 AM EDT, Ghislain Vaillant <ghisv...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > ... > > > > > > How so? Buster will no

Re: Fwd: next version of csvkit

On April 1, 2017 3:42:50 AM EDT, Ghislain Vaillant wrote: >... > >How so? Buster will not be supporting Python 2, so the narrative of >having new source packages only provide Python 3 binary packages is >totally justified. What makes you think this is true? As far as I

Re: Updating Celery, Kombu, python-amqp

On March 24, 2017 4:30:12 AM EDT, Brian May wrote: ... >Alternative: maybe I should go to the other plan of uploading the old >version of kombu with an increased epoch? Please use newversion+reallyoldverssion instead of an epoch. It's generally better to avoid epochs for

Re: Updating Celery, Kombu, python-amqp

On Monday, March 20, 2017 07:28:47 AM Christopher Hoskin wrote: ... > A Python 2 package for the vine dependency is currently in the NEW queue. ... It was just accepted. Scott K

Re: Updating Celery, Kombu, python-amqp

On Saturday, March 18, 2017 05:58:49 PM Brian May wrote: > Christopher Hoskin writes: > > python-amqp depends on vine, but when I previously packaged vine[0], I > > only built the python3 package. Is it too soon to start dropping > > python2 packages from uploads

Re: PyPI source or github source?

On Monday, March 13, 2017 05:55:32 PM Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 03/12/2017 11:34 AM, Ghislain Vaillant wrote: > > On the other hand, I have seen very few pieces of software which had a > > *comprehensive* MANIFEST.in for generating a tarball suitable for > > packaging. The file is often either

Re: Moving a package from collab-maint to python-modules

On March 11, 2017 6:52:59 AM EST, Ghislain Vaillant wrote: >On Sat, 2017-03-11 at 11:24 +, Christopher Hoskin wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I'd like to package python-jsonpointer for Debian. The filer of the >RFP (Bug #754296) Pietro Battiston, has created a repository at >>

Transition away from git-dpm was: Re: Adopting OpenStack packages

Updated the subject, since we've drifted... On Monday, March 06, 2017 04:47:39 PM Simon McVittie wrote: > On Mon, 06 Mar 2017 at 10:32:17 -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > I think it's reasonable to try this out on a branch > > Here's a maybe-stupid idea: use http://dep.debian

Re: Adopting OpenStack packages

On Monday, March 06, 2017 07:04:41 AM Clint Byrum wrote: > Excerpts from Brian May's message of 2017-03-06 12:30:56 +1100: > > The concept to convert from git-dpm to gbp pq is very very easy: > > > > 1. Delete debian/.git-dpm > > 2. Unapply all patches. > > 3. Commit and push. > > > > (repeat

Re: Adopting OpenStack packages

On March 5, 2017 5:09:33 PM EST, Thomas Goirand <z...@debian.org> wrote: >On 03/05/2017 01:13 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> On March 4, 2017 6:41:13 PM EST, Thomas Goirand <z...@debian.org> >wrote: >>> On 03/04/2017 06:03 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: >&g

Re: Adopting OpenStack packages

On March 5, 2017 2:57:10 PM EST, Ondrej Novy wrote: >Hi, > >2017-03-05 18:09 GMT+01:00 Allison Randal : >> >> So, getting back to more practical matters, my proposal is that we >start >> by moving alembic and python-concurrent.futures back to DPMT, since

Re: Adopting OpenStack packages

On March 5, 2017 12:33:03 AM EST, Vincent Bernat <ber...@debian.org> wrote: > ❦ 4 mars 2017 23:04 GMT, Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com> : > >>> > This was not about isolated mistakes. We've all made those. I do >>> > not, however, think it's

Re: Adopting OpenStack packages

On Sunday, March 05, 2017 01:26:19 AM Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 03/04/2017 04:04 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > This was not about isolated mistakes. > > [...] > > I do not, however, think it's useful to rehash the details. > > Though that's what you're doing. > &

Re: Adopting OpenStack packages

On March 4, 2017 6:41:13 PM EST, Thomas Goirand <z...@debian.org> wrote: >On 03/04/2017 06:03 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> If you don't understand why, after repeated warnings, >> you were temporarily banned from team repository access, > >I understand,

Re: Adopting OpenStack packages

On Saturday, March 04, 2017 09:23:28 PM Vincent Bernat wrote: > ❦ 4 mars 2017 15:04 GMT, Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com> : > > This was not about isolated mistakes. We've all made those. I do > > not, however, think it's useful to rehash the details. I do

Re: Adopting OpenStack packages

On March 3, 2017 10:37:16 PM EST, Thomas Goirand wrote: ... >4/ Finally, I feel very much unwelcome by the team "leaders" of the >DPMT >(of which the "main" person happen to also be that SQLA maintainer >which >I prefer not to name). I already have, and will continue to avoid

Re: Moving off of git-dpm

On Thursday, February 16, 2017 12:42:59 PM Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: > On 16 February 2017 at 11:31, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: > > Are you guys seriously considering dgit to replace anything other than > > dput in DPMT? I'd rather go back to svn-buildpackage than use something > >

Re: Moving off of git-dpm (Re: git-dpm breakage src:faker)

On February 11, 2017 4:05:46 PM EST, Nikolaus Rath <nikol...@rath.org> wrote: >On Feb 10 2017, Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com> wrote: >> On February 9, 2017 8:29:32 PM PST, Nikolaus Rath <nikol...@rath.org> >wrote: >>>On Feb 10 2017, Scott

Re: Moving off of git-dpm (Re: git-dpm breakage src:faker)

On February 9, 2017 8:29:32 PM PST, Nikolaus Rath <nikol...@rath.org> wrote: >On Feb 10 2017, Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com> wrote: >>>No. You are confusing dgit with one particular way to use it. You can >>>use dgit with the maint-merge workflow men

Re: Moving off of git-dpm (Re: git-dpm breakage src:faker)

On February 9, 2017 10:52:04 AM PST, Nikolaus Rath wrote: >On Feb 07 2017, Barry Warsaw wrote: >> On Feb 07, 2017, at 10:47 AM, Ghislain Vaillant wrote: >> >>>I know the discussion is leaning towards replacing usage of git-dpm >>>with gbp-pq. I have nothing

Re: Moving off of git-dpm (Re: git-dpm breakage src:faker)

On Sunday, February 05, 2017 03:59:37 PM Brian May wrote: > Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com> writes: > > We should probably be thinking in terms of post-release for this change. > > During the pre-release freeze, the release team doesn't typically allow > > change

Re: Moving off of git-dpm (Re: git-dpm breakage src:faker)

On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 02:23:29 PM Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Jan 29, 2017, at 09:39 AM, Brian May wrote: > >I would think "gbp pq" is the most popular. > > I've used it on some of my non-team packages and while it takes a little > getting used to for the standard git-dpm workflow, it's been

Re: git-dpm breakage src:faker

On January 29, 2017 2:17:16 AM EST, Arto Jantunen <vi...@debian.org> wrote: >Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com> writes: > >> On Sunday, January 29, 2017 09:39:10 AM Brian May wrote: >>> Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com> writes: >>> >

Re: git-dpm breakage src:faker

On Sunday, January 29, 2017 09:39:10 AM Brian May wrote: > Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com> writes: > > On Sunday, January 29, 2017 08:54:57 AM Brian May wrote: > >> Can we switch away from git-dpm yet? Sure this is most likely user > >> error, however

Re: git-dpm breakage src:faker

On Sunday, January 29, 2017 08:54:57 AM Brian May wrote: > Can we switch away from git-dpm yet? Sure this is most likely user > error, however I want to try to solve an RC bug, not fix broken git-dpm > first. Much like the switch from svn to git, I think we need an agreed new workflow and tools

Re: Binary naming for Django Related Packages

On Wednesday, January 18, 2017 10:04:24 AM IOhannes m zmölnig wrote: > On 2017-01-18 07:46, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > +··named·django_packagename·upstream.··These·are·then·packaged·as > > +··python3-django-package·and > > please use "package" vs &q

Re: Binary naming for Django Related Packages

On Wednesday, December 07, 2016 11:43:29 AM Raphael Hertzog wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, 30 Nov 2016, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > Raphael, do you think that the upstream Django project might be willing to > > make some kind of best practices for naming third party django packa

Re: ITP: scandir -- Better directory iterator that returns all file info the OS provides

On January 14, 2017 6:32:07 AM EST, Julien Puydt wrote: >Control: retitle -1 ITP: scandir -- Better directory iterator that >returns all file info the OS provides > >I would like to package python-scandir, as newer versions of >python-pathlib2 now depend on it. > >As

Re: Binary naming for Django Related Packages

On Tuesday, November 29, 2016 02:40:06 PM Piotr Ożarowski wrote: > [Scott Kitterman, 2016-11-29] > > > Piotr: Is there some language that acknowledges the situation as unusual, > > even if it doesn't fully bless it that you'd be comfortable with in > > policy so we can a

Re: Binary naming for Django Related Packages

On Tuesday, November 29, 2016 01:52:07 PM Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Mon, 28 Nov 2016, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > > > Please let me know what you think. I'm open to suggestions on > > > > wording. > > > > I'd like to get this done in the next week

Re: Binary naming for Django Related Packages

On Monday, November 28, 2016 05:50:24 PM Piotr Ożarowski wrote: > [Scott Kitterman, 2016-11-28] > > > I've recently done some Django related packaging for the first time and > > noticed that we have organically (as far as I can tell) grown a slightly > > dif

Re: DPMT membership request

Done. I've left the -guest account in the team in case you need it for transitional purposes. Scott K On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 10:16:35 AM Christos Trochalakis wrote: > Hello, > > I am now using a new alioth username (ctrochalakis), > is it possible to add it to the group? > > Thank

Re: policy question: tag format for patch-less packages

On November 16, 2016 2:33:47 PM CST, "IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU)" wrote: >On 11/16/2016 06:07 AM, chrysn wrote: >> Should git-dpm be used even though no patches are present? > >how do you make sure that you will never need patches? (unless this is >a >native package)

Re: /usr/bin/python2 shebangs

On Monday, November 07, 2016 10:08:25 AM Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Nov 07, 2016, at 11:44 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote: > >So, I don't agree with you, and believe that gradually using > >#!/usr/bin/python2 is a good approach to the transition. IMO, that's > >what we should start doing as much as

Re: Packaging new version of ZODB (Zope Object Database)

On Friday, November 04, 2016 10:47:32 AM Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Nov 03, 2016, at 08:36 PM, Julien Muchembled wrote: > >I'm used to gbp. I don't know git-dpm (or I forgot after seeing I would not > >like?) > > git-dpm is usually pretty easy, but it's really only used in a few cases, > such as

Re: Packaging new version of ZODB (Zope Object Database)

On November 2, 2016 6:51:56 PM EDT, Barry Warsaw wrote: >On Nov 02, 2016, at 10:46 AM, Arnaud Fontaine wrote: > >>> I write to debian-python, because some of the involved packages >are >>> not specific to Zope. Actually, I even think that ZODB itself is >not >>> specific

Re: /usr/bin/python2 shebangs

On November 1, 2016 8:43:50 PM EDT, Donald Stufft <don...@stufft.io> wrote: > >> On Nov 1, 2016, at 6:03 PM, Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com> >wrote: >> >> Even after python2.7 is removed from Debian, there will still be >users who >> ke

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >