Hi karthek e.a.,
Op Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 10:50:07PM +0530 schreef karthek:
> Sorry for spamming…
> Resending the same message, I just remembered debian.org ignores mails
> from mail@* addresses.
>
> On Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 02:24:08PM +, Stefano Rivera wrote:
> > > See "ITP pyenv" @
Sorry for spamming…
Resending the same message, I just remembered debian.org ignores mails
from mail@* addresses.
On Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 02:24:08PM +, Stefano Rivera wrote:
> > See "ITP pyenv" @ http://bugs.debian.org/978149 .
>
> I think the Python development community would be very happy
On Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 12:31:23PM +0100, Joost van Baal-Ilić wrote:
> Op Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 05:52:21AM + schreef Danial Behzadi دانیال بهزادی:
> > Does it worth trying to package pyenv for Debian? Ain't it against any
> > rules?
>
> See "ITP pyenv" @ http://bugs.debian.org/978149 .
Oh,
Hi Joost (2023.02.07_11:31:23_+)
> Op Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 05:52:21AM + schreef Danial Behzadi دانیال بهزادی:
> > Does it worth trying to package pyenv for Debian? Ain't it against any
> > rules?
>
> See "ITP pyenv" @ http://bugs.debian.org/978149 .
I think the Python development
Op Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 05:52:21AM + schreef Danial Behzadi دانیال بهزادی:
> Does it worth trying to package pyenv for Debian? Ain't it against any rules?
See "ITP pyenv" @ http://bugs.debian.org/978149 .
Bye,
Joost
--
Joost van Baal-Ilić http://abramowitz.uvt.nl/
Does it worth trying to package pyenv for Debian? Ain't it against any rules?
Hi Andrey,
On Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 11:53:33AM +0100, Andrey Rakhmatullin wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 05, 2023 at 01:50:34PM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > Our social contract #4 says "Our priorities are our users and free
> > software". What benefits would having the python3.10 base packages in
> >
On 2/5/23 14:50, Julian Gilbey wrote:
Our social contract #4 says "Our priorities are our users and free
software".
In a Debian thread, invoking the social contract #4, is like owning a
goodwin point. It suggests that the opponent is trying to do something
against the Debian users, which is
On Sun, Feb 05, 2023 at 01:50:34PM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> Our social contract #4 says "Our priorities are our users and free
> software". What benefits would having the python3.10 base packages in
> bookworm bring for our users (as I point out, for some users, this is
> a necessity) and
Hi Michael,
On Sun, Feb 05, 2023 at 02:29:10PM +0100, Michael Kesper wrote:
> Hi Julian,
>
> Am 05.02.23 um 11:38 schrieb Julian Gilbey:
> > Why is the current intention not to ship the python3.10 package in
> > bookworm?
>
> Because it would amount to about double the work for all those
On February 5, 2023 5:22:33 PM UTC, Julian Gilbey wrote:
>On Sun, Feb 05, 2023 at 02:41:08PM +, Stefano Rivera wrote:
>> Hi Julian (2023.02.05_10:38:23_+)
>>
>> > Why is the current intention not to ship the python3.10 package in
>> > bookworm?
>>
>> Because we aim to have a single
On Sun, Feb 05, 2023 at 02:41:08PM +, Stefano Rivera wrote:
> Hi Julian (2023.02.05_10:38:23_+)
>
> > Why is the current intention not to ship the python3.10 package in
> > bookworm?
>
> Because we aim to have a single Python release supported in every stable
> release.
I am not
Hi Julian (2023.02.05_10:38:23_+)
> Why is the current intention not to ship the python3.10 package in
> bookworm?
Because we aim to have a single Python release supported in every stable
release.
> I was trying to run some experiments in a virtual environment a few
> days ago, and it turns
Hi Julian,
Am 05.02.23 um 11:38 schrieb Julian Gilbey:
Why is the current intention not to ship the python3.10 package in
bookworm?
Because it would amount to about double the work for all those involved.
Besides, Python 3.11 has some points for it:
- Real performance gains for real
Our social contract #4 says "Our priorities are our users and free
software". What benefits would having the python3.10 base packages in
bookworm bring for our users (as I point out, for some users, this is
a necessity) and what disadvantages would it bring (none that I can
think of)? Why would
How about fixing the 3.11 issues if you hit them ? How about using Buster and
3.9 if 3.11 doesn't work (yet) for you ?
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
On Feb 5, 2023 11:38, Julian Gilbey wrote:
>
> Why is the current intention not to ship the python3.10 package in
> bookworm?
>
> I was trying to run
Why is the current intention not to ship the python3.10 package in
bookworm?
I was trying to run some experiments in a virtual environment a few
days ago, and it turns out that several of the Python packages I
needed do not yet run on Python 3.11. I was saved by being able to
run in a Python
17 matches
Mail list logo
