Hi Loïc!
Loïc Minier wrote:
Require the python- prefix for public modules
This would mean we'd need to split e.g. python-gtk2 into five. Do we really want
that? The should wording allowed one to not do it in special cases. I'm not
saying we shouldn't change it, but we should make sure we're
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
Require the python- prefix for public modules
This would mean we'd need to split e.g. python-gtk2 into five. Do we really
want
that? The should wording allowed one to not do it in special cases. I'm not
saying we shouldn't change it,
On Tue, Dec 08, 2009, Jakub Wilk wrote:
+ versions explicitely.
You could fix that typo if you are at it.
Thanks; I've spell checked the whole document and came up with the
attached patch, Spell check fixes.
--
Loïc Minier
From ee2c89e0b24b2deff74ad35d59a8ca4a9f936ecf Mon Sep 17
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
This would mean we'd need to split e.g. python-gtk2 into five. Do we really
want
that? The should wording allowed one to not do it in special cases. I'm not
saying we shouldn't change it, but we should make sure we're aware of all the
Loïc Minier wrote:
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
This would mean we'd need to split e.g. python-gtk2 into five. Do we really
want
that? The should wording allowed one to not do it in special cases. I'm not
saying we shouldn't change it, but we should make sure we're
* Loïc Minier l...@dooz.org, 2009-12-11, 12:34:
url id=http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html;
- name=The GNU Public Licence.
+ name=The GNU Public License.
That should read: The GNU General Public License.
- explicitly use the versioned interpreter name
+
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
Looks fine to me, but 3.1 needs to be updated too since it currently says
that a
package that needs `foo' must depend on `python-foo', which may not be correct
anymore with this patch.
Ack
--
Loïc Minier
From
Loïc Minier wrote:
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
Looks fine to me, but 3.1 needs to be updated too since it currently says
that a
package that needs `foo' must depend on `python-foo', which may not be
correct
anymore with this patch.
Ack
Looks good, thanks!
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 11:04:32AM +0100, Loïc Minier wrote:
On Wed, Dec 09, 2009, Luca Falavigna wrote:
I entirely read the 1.9.0.0 draft, I've got some thoughts on it.
Thanks for your review, I'm attaching the following new patches:
s/binary/interpreter for /usr/bin/python*
I think
2009/12/9 Loïc Minier l...@dooz.org:
On Wed, Dec 09, 2009, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
Where is this git repository hosted? Or where can I get the current
version of the policy as seen on the debian.org website?
Concerning the Python Policy, it's currently not handled in any VCS, so
I created
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
I think this is a policy regression, actually. The fact that
/usr/bin/python2.x is a binary, and /usr/bin/python is a symlink pointing to
a binary, is not irrelevant - we certainly don't want someone to get the
idea that it's ok to replace either of
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
2009/12/9 Loïc Minier l...@dooz.org:
On Wed, Dec 09, 2009, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
Where is this git repository hosted? Or where can I get the current
version of the policy as seen on the debian.org website?
Concerning the Python Policy,
Le mardi 08 décembre 2009 à 21:24 +0100, Loïc Minier a écrit :
The goal of this set of patches is only to reflect what's de facto
being done in the archive, and update various bit-rotted sections of
the Python Policy. It's only a first step, but also a prerequisite for
other changes.
On Wed, Dec 09, 2009, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
Where is this git repository hosted? Or where can I get the current
version of the policy as seen on the debian.org website?
Concerning the Python Policy, it's currently not handled in any VCS, so
I created a private git repo from the uploads of
Il giorno Tue, 8 Dec 2009 21:24:05 +0100
Loïc Minier l...@dooz.org ha scritto:
To resurrect the Python Policy as a document reflecting required and
recommended Python packaging practices, we prepared a set of patches.
Many thanks for that!
I entirely read the 1.9.0.0 draft, I've got some
On Tue, Dec 08, 2009 at 09:24:05PM +0100, Loïc Minier wrote:
To resurrect the Python Policy as a document reflecting required and
recommended Python packaging practices, we prepared a set of patches.
We started in private to provide a complete set of changes and avoid
flames as much as
Hello,
Now I wish I could find time to write de-facto packaging tutorial in
wiki to see how the patched policy and original policy is going to
solve this real-world problem.
Thanks for collaboration.
--
anatoly t.
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 10:24 PM, Loïc Minier l...@dooz.org wrote:
[ MFT:
Luca Falavigna dktrkr...@debian.org writes:
---
| 1.2. Main packages
|
|At any time, the `python' package must ensure that the binary
|`/usr/bin/python' is provided.
---
This is currently not a binary, but a relative symlink pointing
to ./pythonX.Y (where X.Y is the current
* Loïc Minier l...@dooz.org, 2009-12-08, 21:24:
+ versions explicitely.
You could fix that typo if you are at it.
(Sorry for nitpicking!)
--
Jakub Wilk
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
2009/12/8 Loïc Minier l...@dooz.org:
[ MFT: debian-pyt...@ldo ]
Hi all,
To resurrect the Python Policy as a document reflecting required and
recommended Python packaging practices, we prepared a set of patches.
We started in private to provide a complete set of changes and avoid
Dmitrijs Ledkovs dmitrij.led...@gmail.com (09/12/2009):
Where is this git repository hosted? Or where can I get the current
version of the policy as seen on the debian.org website?
$ debcheckout debian-policy
declared git repository at git://git.debian.org/git/dbnpolicy/policy.git
git clone
21 matches
Mail list logo
