On 6 Sep 2001, Mikael Hedin wrote:
> So file bug on the packages in question. They could also depend on
> python(>=1.5), python(<<1.6). See my other postings on this.
I see it as the difference between putting a gate on the corral, and
running around trying to round up the livestock whenever th
So file bug on the packages in question. They could also depend on
python(>=1.5), python(<<1.6). See my other postings on this.
/Micce
--
Mikael Hedin, MSc +46 (0)980 79176
Swedish Institute of Space Physics +46 (0)8 344979 (home)
Box 812, S-981 28 KIRUNA, Sweden+46 (0)70
On Thu, 6 Sep 2001, Neil Schemenauer wrote:
> Bruce Sass wrote:
> > Any program that exists with Python dependent versions will need
> > multiple versions of Python packages. Maybe Zope today, who knows
> > what tomorrow. Either Debian supports multiple installed versions of
> > Python out-of-th
Bruce Sass wrote:
> Any program that exists with Python dependent versions will need
> multiple versions of Python packages. Maybe Zope today, who knows
> what tomorrow. Either Debian supports multiple installed versions of
> Python out-of-the-box, or users start jumping through a bunch of hoops
On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, Neil Schemenauer wrote:
> Jérôme Marant:
> > The major question is: do we still need to ship 1.5.2? Unfortunately,
> > the old python seems to be necessary since some old packages are not
> > compatible with 2.x versions.
>
> Do you know of any? If you can point them out
Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Neil Schemenauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Do you know of any? If you can point them out I may be able to help fix
> > them.
>
> Zope 2.3x was the most obvious example. I don't know if python-ldap can
> work with 2.x too. All python packages that provide binary mo
Neil Schemenauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jérôme Marant:
> > The major question is: do we still need to ship 1.5.2? Unfortunately,
> > the old python seems to be necessary since some old packages are not
> > compatible with 2.x versions.
>
> Do you know of any? If you can point them o
Neil Schemenauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jim Penny wrote:
> > This is not all that simple. python2.1 conflicts with zope2.3.x
> > and python1.5 conflicts with zope2.4.x.
>
> In that case I think it's better to create python1.5 and zope2.3
> legacy packages for people who can't upgrade.
I p
Jim Penny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is not all that simple. python2.1 conflicts with zope2.3.x
> and python1.5 conflicts with zope2.4.x. Further, it is often
> the case that there is a fair amount of internal breakage when
> upgrading from one release of zope to another. It is not unus
Jim Penny wrote:
> This is not all that simple. python2.1 conflicts with zope2.3.x
> and python1.5 conflicts with zope2.4.x.
In that case I think it's better to create python1.5 and zope2.3
legacy packages for people who can't upgrade.
Neil
On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 06:43:37PM -0400, Scott Moynes wrote:
> * Robert Kern ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > However, Zope 2.4.0 and up require Python 2.1.
>
> However, Debian only has Zope 2.3.3, although this may soon be
> remedied as a new stable version, 2.4.1, was released recently.
This is
* Robert Kern ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> However, Zope 2.4.0 and up require Python 2.1.
However, Debian only has Zope 2.3.3, although this may soon be
remedied as a new stable version, 2.4.1, was released recently.
--
Copyleft (c) 2001, Scott Moynes
pgpJeORv9sXhA.pgp
Description: PGP signatu
On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 05:51:12PM -0400, Scott Moynes wrote:
[snip]
> For what it's worth, Zope is not compatible with python 2.x, and being
> a high profile Free software project, I think retaining python 1.5
> simply for Zope may be enough to justify a little bit of hassle.
However, Zope 2.4.
Jérôme Marant:
> The major question is: do we still need to ship 1.5.2? Unfortunately,
> the old python seems to be necessary since some old packages are not
> compatible with 2.x versions.
Do you know of any? If you can point them out I may be able to help fix
them.
Scott Moynes wrote:
>
> The major question is: do we still need to ship 1.5.2? Unfortunately,
> the old python seems to be necessary since some old packages are not
> compatible with 2.x versions.
>
> I would advice to audit every package in order to see if it can run
> with newer pythons and we may come up w
Neil Schemenauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Mikael Hedin wrote:
> > I think the proposed scheme with python2.1 and module2.0 et.al. is
> > really ugly and messy.
>
> I agree. Didn't the Perl packagers advise us not to go down this
> path?
There is only one Perl in Debian now , which is 5.6
Mikael Hedin wrote:
> I think the proposed scheme with python2.1 and module2.0 et.al. is
> really ugly and messy.
I agree. Didn't the Perl packagers advise us not to go down this
path?
Neil
Hi, I'm probably missing something big, but here are my thoughts:
Why mess with all these versioned python? Could we not have
python-base (that will be version 2.1 soon), and for the ones who
need, python-base-x.y? And the python-base will be the default/newest
available?
If packages install
18 matches
Mail list logo
