On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 12:32:02PM -0800, Neil Schemenauer wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 11:01:40PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I've already built a Python 2.0 package with installs along side
> of the regular Debian Python package.
Someone asked for them so here they are:
http://peo
On Tue, 9 Jan 2001 21:03:57 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> From the Python news file:
> - Python bytecode files (*.pyc and *.pyo) are not compatible between
> releases.
Note that this is a promise the Python development team makes :
we break the .pyc almost every revision. In particular 2.1 (w
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 12:32:02PM -0800, Neil Schemenauer wrote:
| On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 11:01:40PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| > What I want is if we allow both Python 1.5 _and_ Python 2.0 to be
| > So we need
| > ...
|
| No, we don't. Python already installs its modules into
|
| $
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 11:01:40PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> What I want is if we allow both Python 1.5 _and_ Python 2.0 to be
> So we need
> ...
No, we don't. Python already installs its modules into
$PREFIX/lib/python$VERSION
I've already built a Python 2.0 package with installs a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> And a final thought: why dont we replace Python 1.5.2 with 2.0 and
> save us all this hassle with Python versions? I dont think that there
> are Python apps that only work on 1.5, but not on 2.0.
The 2.0 license may not be compatible with the GPL. Any GPLed Python
code
What I want is if we allow both Python 1.5 _and_ Python 2.0 to be
installed simultaneously we also must allow to actually use both at
the same time.
I want to do both
#python15 -c "import sys"
and
#python20 -c "import sys"
Or, I want to switch my alternative settings for the Python interpreter
from
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Now what if you install Python 2.0 and then call /usr/bin/python15?
> This will use the newly-compiled .pyc files which are incompatible.
Python handles this without doing anything nasty, thankfully... it
treats the unusable .pyc/.pyo file as if it was out-of-date or
no
Hello,
> * we make /usr/bin/python point to python 2 thanks to alternatives
> * we run a compileall.py in python/site-packages in order to
> get them byte-recompiled for 2.0
From the Python news file:
- Python bytecode files (*.pyc and *.pyo) are not compatible between
releases
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 08:53:39AM +0100, J?r?me Marant wrote:
| D-Man <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|
| > If you have a different solution that's fine as well.
|
| The whole stuff is handled by alternatives.
| See update-alternatives manpage.
|
Oh, ok. Another part of the Debian package sys
D-Man <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you have a different solution that's fine as well.
The whole stuff is handled by alternatives.
See update-alternatives manpage.
It would be better to have a small script that:
- update-alternatives
- run compileall.py in /usr/lib/python/site-packa
I thought that's what you meant with the executable.
I was imagining that the python executables would be in separate
directories (or just different names) ie /usr/bin/python15 and
/usr/bin/python20. Then have a symlink /usr/bin/python ->
/usr/bin/python20.
If you have a different solution th
D-Man <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It sounds good to me. I think the admin should have the option of
> setting the symlinks to default to 1.5 or 2.0.
Sorry, I can't see what symlink you are dealing with ?
--
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://jerome.marant.free.fr
It sounds good to me. I think the admin should have the option of
setting the symlinks to default to 1.5 or 2.0.
-D
On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 03:04:33PM +0100, J?r?me Marant wrote:
|
[snip proposal for multiple version installation]
| --
| Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13 matches
Mail list logo
