Hi Scott (2023.01.29_01:34:54_+)
> It'd be much simpler just to drop DPT or myself from uploaders and ignore
> this, so that's probably the path I would take.
The Debian Python Policy is independent of DPT. So, if adopted, that
wouldn't help much... :)
> Regardless, I do
package being removed from
>sid, reopening and reassigning where python-policy seems to be located
>now.
>
>On Tue, 2022-12-27 at 23:29:30 +, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
>> Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 03:11:06 +0200
>> From: Guillem Jover
>> To: sub...@bugs.d
Control: reopen -1
Control: reassign -1 python3
[ Sorry, resending, as the bug was archived so it ignored all the
control commands. ]
This got closed due to the python-defaults package being removed from
sid, reopening and reassigning where python-policy seems to be located
now.
On Tue, 2022
The Python Policy document [1] states:
> For all supported Debian releases, sys.path does not include a
> /usr/lib/pythonXY.zip entry.
I may not understand the sentence, or something, because it looks wrong to me
as pythonXY looks to be in sys.path, at least on my Debian bookworm:
Hi,
I added in the Wiki [0], the link to the python3-defaults
docs and policy [1].
Please review it.
[0] https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/PythonTeam#preview
[1] https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/python-policy/
Cheers
Emmanuel
Hi!
On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 7:43 AM wrote:
> Hello,
>
> this is about the wiki page of that team.
> https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/PythonTeam
>
> I accidentally found the "Debian Python Policy documentation".
> https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/python-pol
Hello,
this is about the wiki page of that team.
https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/PythonTeam
I accidentally found the "Debian Python Policy documentation".
https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/python-policy/
Looks nice and very important for new team members.
Maybe it
Hi Dmitry (2021.02.26_19:10:42_+)
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 06:09:50PM +, Stefano Rivera wrote:
> > Hi Dmitry (2021.02.26_08:31:11_+)
> > > You can use :samp:`python3.{Y}`. See:
> >
> > Thanks for the hint. Glad I asked :)
> >
> > Switched to that, and re-rendered.
>
> Small addition
On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 06:09:50PM +, Stefano Rivera wrote:
> Hi Dmitry (2021.02.26_08:31:11_+)
> > You can use :samp:`python3.{Y}`. See:
>
> Thanks for the hint. Glad I asked :)
>
> Switched to that, and re-rendered.
Small addition (sorry that I did not mention it earlier): when
Hi Dmitry (2021.02.26_08:31:11_+)
> You can use :samp:`python3.{Y}`. See:
Thanks for the hint. Glad I asked :)
Switched to that, and re-rendered.
SR
--
Stefano Rivera
http://tumbleweed.org.za/
+1 415 683 3272
Hi Stefano!
On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 10:58:41PM +, Stefano Rivera wrote:
> Hacking on the docbook Python Policy is no fun.
>
> I ported the current version to sphinx.
>
> MR: https://salsa.debian.org/cpython-team/python3-defaults/-/merge_requests/10
>
> Render: http
Hacking on the docbook Python Policy is no fun.
I ported the current version to sphinx.
MR: https://salsa.debian.org/cpython-team/python3-defaults/-/merge_requests/10
Render: https://people.debian.org/~stefanor/python-policy-sphinx/
I'd appreciate it if anyone who has the time would give
Hi Fabrice,
Fabrice BAUZAC-STEHLY writes:
> Hello Debian-Python,
>
> I have a few questions regarding the Python Policy:
> https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/python-policy/
>
> - Is there a Debian package for reading it offline? (apparently not)
>
> - Who
Hello Debian-Python,
I have a few questions regarding the Python Policy:
https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/python-policy/
- Is there a Debian package for reading it offline? (apparently not)
- Who maintains this document: is it the Policy team, the Python team?
- Where
Hi Geert!
On Sun, Jul 05, 2020 at 07:05:28PM +0200, Geert Stappers wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Where to find the source of python-policy?
I believe it is here:
https://salsa.debian.org/cpython-team/python3-defaults/-/blob/master/debian/python-policy.dbk
--
Dmitry Shachnev
signature.asc
Descrip
Hi,
Where to find the source of python-policy?
It it not (yet?) at Salsa
https://salsa.debian.org/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93=false=_ref==python-policy
https://salsa.debian.org/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93=false=_ref==packaging-manuals
>
> I have reread [3] https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-m
Le mer. 6 nov. 2019 à 23:49, Matthias Klose a écrit :
>
> On 06.11.19 22:04, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
> > Brian May writes:
> >> Or maybe even expand as two bullet points:
> >>
> >> - Do not remove python-foo-doc.
> >> - Do not rename it to python3-foo-doc.
> >>
> >> I think this makes it very
On 06.11.19 22:04, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
Brian May writes:
Stéphane Blondon writes:
Perhaps there is a doubt how to read it?
- do not (remove python-foo-doc or rename it to python3-foo-doc)
- (do not remove python-foo-doc) or (rename it to python3-foo-doc)
Would it be better if we
Brian May writes:
> Stéphane Blondon writes:
>
>> Perhaps there is a doubt how to read it?
>> - do not (remove python-foo-doc or rename it to python3-foo-doc)
>> - (do not remove python-foo-doc) or (rename it to python3-foo-doc)
>>
>> Would it be better if we remove the indentation and use this
Stéphane Blondon writes:
> Perhaps there is a doubt how to read it?
> - do not (remove python-foo-doc or rename it to python3-foo-doc)
> - (do not remove python-foo-doc) or (rename it to python3-foo-doc)
>
> Would it be better if we remove the indentation and use this sentence(?):
> if
On 03.11.19 15:09, Neil Williams wrote:
On Sun, 3 Nov 2019 15:00:17 +0100
Matthias Klose wrote:
[discussing this outside the bug report on the ML]
On 03.11.19 14:39, Neil Williams wrote:
Actually, that's a good catch. I was mixing up the defaults package
with the general advice on python3
On Sun, 3 Nov 2019 15:00:17 +0100
Matthias Klose wrote:
> [discussing this outside the bug report on the ML]
>
> On 03.11.19 14:39, Neil Williams wrote:
> > Actually, that's a good catch. I was mixing up the defaults package
> > with the general advice on python3 migration to not remove
> >
[discussing this outside the bug report on the ML]
On 03.11.19 14:39, Neil Williams wrote:
Actually, that's a good catch. I was mixing up the defaults package
with the general advice on python3 migration to not remove
python-foo-doc just to rename it to python3-foo-doc.
where did you read
Package: python3
Version: 3.7.5-1
Severity: normal
As discussed on IRC and alongside the post to debian-devel-announce, please
review and include this amendment to the Debian Python Policy to cover
the removal of the Python 2 stack as outlined at
https://wiki.debian.org/Python/2Removal
https
https://wiki.debian.org/Python/Policy has been updated/cleaned up.
Sorry it took so long.
Joseph
On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 10:50 PM, Ben Finney <bign...@debian.org> wrote:
> Joseph Herlant <herla...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Mon, May 14, 2018, 10:
Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com> writes:
> 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 updatin
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 https://www.debian.org/doc/packag
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 https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/python-policy/
?
It's ranked 3rd in Google when looking for "Debian P
Scott Kitterman writes:
> On Tuesday, February 02, 2016 06:44:57 AM Ben Finney wrote:
> > Ben Finney writes:
> > > * Address all the language around Python 2 versus Python 3 versus
> > > Python general, and re-order or re-word to focus
On Feb 16, 2016, at 11:54 AM, Paul Wise wrote:
>I always thought it strange to put site- in /usr/local since
>/usr/local already implies site/system-wide packages. Same for dist-
>since /usr already implies distribution packages.
For as long as I can remember, a from-source 'configure && make &&
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:42 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> I don't remember exactly why we called it 'site-packages' ...
Thanks for the history :)
I always thought it strange to put site- in /usr/local since
/usr/local already implies site/system-wide packages. Same for dist-
since /usr already
On Feb 15, 2016, at 07:42 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>I don't remember exactly why we called it 'site-packages', but I believe it
>was an evolution from the earlier ni.py module, which was where dotted module
>paths first showed up in Python.
And which had a 'site-python' directory, which was kept
on3
+ will represent the current default Debian Python 3 version; the
+ binary package python will represent the
+ current default Debian Python 2 version. As far as is reasonable,
+ Python 3 and Python 2 should be treated as separate runtime
+ systems with minimal interdependencies.
On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 04:46:19 PM Ben Finney wrote:
...
> Once these non-semantic changes are accepted I will begin work on the
> second stage of semantic changes.
...
OK. Those are all accepted. Barry Warsaw had done some changes in the -whl
section so I made an attempt at merging
Scott Kitterman writes:
> On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 04:46:19 PM Ben Finney wrote:
> ...
> > Once these non-semantic changes are accepted I will begin work on
> > the second stage of semantic changes.
> ...
>
> OK. Those are all accepted.
Thank you, Scott! I'll
Scott Kitterman writes:
> I should be able to get it reviewed and merged no later than Saturday
> (probably Friday).
Much appreciated, thanks for the response.
--
\“When I was a baby I kept a diary. Recently I was re-reading |
`\ it, it said ‘Day 1: Still
On January 26, 2016 10:32:57 PM EST, Ben Finney
wrote:
>Dmitry Shachnev writes:
>
>> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 04:46:19PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
>> > I'm planning to provide changes in two bundles:
>> >
>> > * Go through the whole document and
Hi Ben,
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 04:46:19PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> I'm planning to provide changes in two bundles:
>
> * Go through the whole document and tidy it up for consistency, source
> style, markup, and language style. This should not change the meaning
> of anything, but will
Dmitry Shachnev writes:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 04:46:19PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > I'm planning to provide changes in two bundles:
> >
> > * Go through the whole document and tidy it up for consistency,
> > source style, markup, and language style. This should not
hints to match Debian Policy text
style.
411: Scott Kitterman 2016-01-24 Python policy updates (draft) for Stretch
DO NOT UPLOAD YET:wq
# Bazaar merge directive format 2 (Bazaar 0.90)
# revision_id: ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au-20160126051103-\
# 3zbuoy0u0vp14w5d
# target_branch: bzr+ssh://bz
Ben Finney writes:
> I'm planning to provide changes in two bundles:
>
> * Go through the whole document and tidy it up for consistency, source
> style, markup, and language style. This should not change the meaning
> of anything, but will change the wording of
Scott Kitterman writes:
> On Sunday, January 24, 2016 04:58:26 PM Ben Finney wrote:
> > Found it; the source document is ‘python-policy.sgml’ in the source
> > VCS for ‘python3’. Currently that's a Bazaar repository at
> >
On January 24, 2016 11:59:14 PM EST, Ben Finney
wrote:
>Scott Kitterman writes:
>
>> On Sunday, January 24, 2016 04:58:26 PM Ben Finney wrote:
>> > Found it; the source document is ‘python-policy.sgml’ in the source
>> > VCS for ‘python3’.
Thanks for taking this on Ben,
On Jan 24, 2016, at 04:33 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
>I think you're right that this needs a general clean-up through the
>policy document, to consistently use:
>
>* “python2” to refer to that command only;
>
>* “python3” to refer to that command only;
>
>* “python” to
On Friday, January 22, 2016 05:55:19 PM Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Jan 21, 2016, at 10:47 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> >I've taken a run through the current Python Policy to see where I think it
> >needs to be updated for Stretch.
>
> Thanks Scott for the badly needed updat
On Saturday, January 23, 2016 08:50:49 PM Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Jan 23, 2016, at 03:38 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> >Personally I seriously dislike the trend to call Python Python 2 (and I
> >still thing approving a pep to invent /usr/bin/python2 because Arch went
> >insane was a horrible
On Jan 23, 2016, at 03:38 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>Personally I seriously dislike the trend to call Python Python 2 (and I still
>thing approving a pep to invent /usr/bin/python2 because Arch went insane was
>a horrible idea). There's an earlier spot in the document where it says that
On Sunday, January 24, 2016 04:46:09 PM Ben Finney wrote:
> Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com> writes:
> > I've taken a run through the current Python Policy to see where I
> > think it needs to be updated for Stretch. The updates largely fall
> > into four categor
Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com> writes:
> I don't particularly agree, but if that's correct, then there's a
> large amount of change needed throughout the policy. These certainly
> aren't the only places this comes up.
Yes, that's likely because when the Debian Python polic
On Sunday, January 24, 2016 04:58:26 PM Ben Finney wrote:
> Ben Finney writes:
> > Where is the Git (I assume?) repository you're using for VCS of this
> > policy document?
>
> Found it; the source document is ‘python-policy.sgml’ in the source VCS
> for ‘python3’.
Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com> writes:
> I've taken a run through the current Python Policy to see where I
> think it needs to be updated for Stretch. The updates largely fall
> into four categories: […]
This is great to see, thank you Scott.
Where is the Git (I assu
e only places this comes up.
>
> Yes, that's likely because when the Debian Python policy was initially
> drafted, there was no Python 3 anywhere close to entering Debian. So
> “Python” and “Python 2” were less ambiguously conflated at that time.
>
> Now that Python 2 and Python 3
Ben Finney writes:
> Where is the Git (I assume?) repository you're using for VCS of this
> policy document?
Found it; the source document is ‘python-policy.sgml’ in the source VCS
for ‘python3’. Currently that's a Bazaar repository at
On Jan 21, 2016, at 10:47 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>I've taken a run through the current Python Policy to see where I think it
>needs to be updated for Stretch.
Thanks Scott for the badly needed update.
Some comments, apologies for the lack of good quoting, or if I've read th
I've taken a run through the current Python Policy to see where I think it
needs to be updated for Stretch. The updates largely fall into four
categories:
1. Update old examples
2. Clean up old policy test that no longer applies
3. Simplify things due to there only being one python version
On Oct 22, 2015, at 11:14 AM, IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU) wrote:
>thanks for gender neutral wording. however, you missed one "his" in the
>first sentence (probably more in other paragraphs).
Got it, thanks.
-Barry
pgpm4DkniheG1.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On Oct 22, 2015, at 11:11 AM, IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU) wrote:
>something else i wonder whether we shouldn't drop it, as i don't quite
>understand why it has to be in the policy.
>
>i *think* it's supposed to urge DDs into becoming team members, even though
>they can ("are able to") already
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 2015-10-20 22:53, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> +Any·Debian·developer·who·wishes·to·integrate·his·packages·in·the·team
·can·do
>
>
+so·without·requesting·access·(as·the·repository·is·writable·by·all·DD).
·If·one
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 2015-10-20 22:53, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> +Any·Debian·developer·who·wishes·to·integrate·his·packages·in·the·team
·can·do
>
>
+so·without·requesting·access·(as·the·repository·is·writable·by·all·DD).
·If·one
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 2015-10-21 15:54, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> Hopefully, the latest changes (see previous follow up) are both
> more concise and coherent.
maybe.
i have to admit i'm not totally used to an reviewing git patches per
mailinglists, and in this case i
On Oct 21, 2015, at 08:47 PM, Brian May wrote:
>in one case this is because upstream have only supplied a *.whl
>file on Pypi.
I'm *really* hoping that the PyPA will prohibit binary wheel-only uploads.
There is talk about source wheels, and if that happens we'll probably have to
adjust our tools
On 2015-10-21 09:31:04 -0500 (-0500), Ian Cordasco wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> > On Oct 21, 2015, at 08:47 PM, Brian May wrote:
> >
> >>in one case this is because upstream have only supplied a *.whl
> >>file on Pypi.
> >
> > I'm *really*
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Oct 21, 2015, at 08:47 PM, Brian May wrote:
>
>>in one case this is because upstream have only supplied a *.whl
>>file on Pypi.
>
> I'm *really* hoping that the PyPA will prohibit binary wheel-only uploads.
I'm not sure
Vincent Bernat writes:
> You should remove the reference to Pypi since tarballs can also be taken
> From GitHub (when upstream doesn't want to ship everything, like tests,
> in Pypi tarballs or doesn't even release tarballs on Pypi):
Have filled upstream bugs on issues that
❦ 20 octobre 2015 20:52 -0400, Barry Warsaw :
>>I'd remove this paragraph. Releases can be made via `git archive` and I did
>>that many times (assuming pristine-tar will still keep needed data to
>>regenerate exact same tarball). If you meant that we don't want to keep
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 2015-10-21 02:17, Ben Finney wrote:
> "IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU)" writes:
>
>> thanks a lot for preparing all this.
>>
>> On 10/20/2015 10:53 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>>> +DPMT requires upstream tarballs; releases
Thanks for the feedback Piotr. I've made all the changes you suggest, except
one. I'll discuss that below and include an updated diff against master.
On Oct 19, 2015, at 11:26 PM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
>I'm against this change. If we want all team packages to follow some
>rules, these rules
On Oct 20, 2015, at 12:37 AM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
>should we also document that we're not OpenStack Packaging Team?
Or zope-packaging? . Agreed that there are different teams here, but I
am hoping that we can do some consolidation. E.g. I posted on the zope list
that I'd like to pull those
[Barry Warsaw, 2015-10-20]
> Here's my concern: I don't want too much duplication of information in
> multiple locations. That's a sure recipe for bitrot, and I know no one wants
> to have to edit information in more than one place.
>
> Until now, the wiki has been the more convenient place to
Latest diff against master. If you're happy with this, I'll merge to master,
update the web page, and trim the wiki.
Cheers,
-Barry
diff --git a/policy.rst b/policy.rst
index c09f03a..123792c 100644
--- a/policy.rst
+++ b/policy.rst
@@ -1,39 +1,44 @@
-
-
thanks a lot for preparing all this.
On 10/20/2015 10:53 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> +DPMT requires upstream tarballs; releases cannot be made from upstream git
> +repositories directly. This is because PyPI contains upstream tarballs, and
> +tarballs are what we upload to the Debian archive.
i
On Oct 20, 2015, at 05:16 PM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
>I will leave this team the moment I have to read README.sources each day when
>I sponsor a package.
Nobody wants that! (either you leaving or having to read README.source for
every package).
Cheers,
-Barry
[Barry Warsaw, 2015-10-20]
> Latest diff against master. If you're happy with this, I'll merge to master,
> update the web page, and trim the wiki.
I have few comments, but even if I didn't, please wait at least until after
the weekend (or better: 7 days) so that others have time to review it
[Barry Warsaw, 2015-10-20]
> On Oct 19, 2015, at 09:04 PM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
>
> >Debian Python Policy¹ is something every single packages that extends
> >Python should follow. There are many teams (more than 4) each of them
> >can have their own
[Barry Warsaw, 2015-10-20]
> I also think it would be fine to *eventually* merge the two teams. I suspect
> there isn't really much benefit to keeping them separate and a lot of
> unnecessary cost. Is there anybody on PAPT who doesn't want to be on DPMT?
/me puts his PAPT admin hat on
WHAT?
On Oct 21, 2015, at 11:17 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
>On the contrary, I think the Policy document should document the
>rationale for contingent decisions like this. When it is inevitably
>discussed again in the future, it is always better to know the intent of
>the authors.
+1
Cheers,
-Barry
On Oct 20, 2015, at 11:30 PM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
>I have few comments, but even if I didn't, please wait at least until after
>the weekend (or better: 7 days) so that others have time to review it and
>comment / propose changes.
Fair enough. Of course, it's in a vcs so it's easy to change!
"IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU)" writes:
> thanks a lot for preparing all this.
>
> On 10/20/2015 10:53 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> > +DPMT requires upstream tarballs; releases cannot be made from upstream git
> > +repositories directly. This is because PyPI contains
| diff --git a/policy.rst b/policy.rst
| index c09f03a..9a9abb4 100644
| --- a/policy.rst
| +++ b/policy.rst
| @@ -1,20 +1,19 @@
| -
| - Python Modules Packaging Team - Policy
| -
|
So we currently have several places where we have team policy described.
* The Debian wiki
https://wiki.debian.org/Python and subpages
* Another wiki page:
https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/PythonModulesTeam
* https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/python-policy/
which comes from
[Barry Warsaw, 2015-10-19]
> So we currently have several places where we have team policy described.
no.
Debian Python Policy¹ is something every single packages that extends
Python should follow. There are many teams (more than 4) each of them
can have their own policy that extends
an.org/Teams/PythonModulesTeam
>
>* https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/python-policy/
>which comes from the python-defaults (*not* python3-defaults!) in the
>bzr
> repo at
> http://alioth.debian.org/anonscm/bzr/pkg-python/python-defaults-debian
>
>* "PMPT&quo
[Piotr Ożarowski, 2015-10-19]
> DPMT and PAPT are two different things
ups, PMPT != PAPT :)
anyway, there are only documents each DPMT should know:
* https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/python-policy/
* https://python-modules.alioth.debian.org/policy.html
everything else can h
Piotr Ożarowski writes:
> [Piotr Ożarowski, 2015-10-19]
> > DPMT and PAPT are two different things
>
> ups, PMPT != PAPT :)
So which of the following are redundant, and which names are canonical?
* Debian Python Modules Team
* Python Module Packaging Team
* Debian Python
[Ben Finney, 2015-10-19]
> So which of the following are redundant, and which names are canonical?
>
> * Debian Python Modules Team
> * Python Module Packaging Team
these two are the same thing
> * Debian Python Maintainers Team
this doesn't exist AFAIK
> For symmetry with “Python Application
Barry Warsaw writes:
> * "PMPT" policy
> http://python-modules.alioth.debian.org/
> git+ssh://git.debian.org/git/python-modules/tools/python-modules.git
Is policy.rst automatically kept in sync somehow in between
python-modules.git and
[Brian May, 2015-10-20]
> Are DAPT and PAPT the same thing?
no such thing as DAPT
> This information should be documented somewhere.
should we also document that we're not OpenStack Packaging Team?
> In my words, for Debian project there is a wiki and a policy. For each
> team there is a wiki
not a place to store official documents.
>
>> * Another wiki page:
>> https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/PythonModulesTeam
>
> this is wiki page, not a policy
>
>> * https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/python-policy/
>> which comes from the python-de
Near the start of Chapter 1, Section 1.1:
implmentation → implementation
Checked against 0.9.4.2.
--
http://rrt.sc3d.org
On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 11:05:30 PM Reuben Thomas wrote:
Near the start of Chapter 1, Section 1.1:
implmentation → implementation
Checked against 0.9.4.2.
Fixed in the VCS for the next python-defaults upload.
Thanks,
Scott K
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
, then you
still need to specify (in this example) X-Python3-Version.
This is true, but I'm not sure why Python Policy needs to talk about
this. If it does, then probably appendix B would be the correct place.
Or a footnote.
In general, how X(S)P(3)V is translated to dependency on python(3
* Scott Kitterman deb...@kitterman.com, 2012-03-19, 09:29:
The generated minumum dependency may be different than the lowest
version currently supported. In such cases, X-Python-Version must
still be specified if the generated dependency is not sufficient.
[...]
I think something like my first
I've attached a patch (it's built on the last one I sent) that attempts to
clarify policy around packages that only work with specific versions of
Python/Python3. Here's what I attempted to do:
- Changed should support the default version to should support all supported
versions.
- Dropped
3 3.2 need this specifed in X-Python3-Version.
I took a stab at adding some words to the Python policy to explain this.
Comments please (diff attached).
Scott K--- python-policy.txt 2012-03-16 23:29:14.384401914 -0400
+++ python-policy.new.txt 2012-03-16 23:46:06.460372010 -0400
@@ -398,16
* Stefano Rivera stefa...@debian.org, 2011-03-24, 15:35:
I see we still suggest ${python:Provides}. I was encouraged in
#debian-python to never use these unless there's an existing
dependency on a versioned package name.
Correctly using python Provides is expensive. Here's why:
“Provides:
Hi Jakub (2011.03.24_18:48:04_+0200)
But you can claim that only if the package depends on the python2.X
versions of all other modules it requires, even if some of them are
arch:all! (The policy doesn't explain this...)
It does say:
| Packaged modules available for one particular version of
Hi Scott (2011.03.19_05:52:49_+0200)
What else needs doing?
I suggest making it clearer in the policy that byte-compilation etc.
are best taken care of by helpers. The policy *is* probably the first
place that someone looking to create a Python module/app package will
look.
There are a few
On Thursday, March 24, 2011 09:35:21 am Stefano Rivera wrote:
I see we still suggest ${python:Provides}. I was encouraged in
#debian-python to never use these unless there's an existing
dependency on a versioned package name.
There are no real packages using a name like python2.X-modulename.
Hi Scott (2011.03.24_15:45:36_+0200)
I think once we get to pyhton2.7 as the only supported python, it
won't matter.
As long as we handle rebuilds after every transition, it already
shouldn't matter (in Python 2 and 3). With dh_python2 we have the same
rebuild requirements, but don't suggest
Today's mail on XB-Python-Version motivates me to send out an overdue call for
inputs on further changes to the Python policy. I know that needs to go.
What else needs doing?
Personally I'd like to concentrate on getting policy for Python 3 to the point
that it's possible to produce a correct
1 - 100 of 375 matches
Mail list logo