On Wed, 12 Dec 2001, Jim Penny wrote:
I would not care to be the fellow who had a mission critical application,
who 'upgraded', and found his site no longer working, with no way of
backing up to a working configuration.
While I agree with you in general (I wonder if it is worth a bug
report or
hmm, then we have to keep zope 2.1 as well (the version from
potato). Why do you want to keep 2.3, not 2.2? Why not 2.5? IMO If you
have a mission critical application, which is incompatible among zope
versions, then you should install your own zope. Am I wrong here?
Jim Penny writes:
I have a
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 12:26:11AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
hmm, then we have to keep zope 2.1 as well (the version from
potato). Why do you want to keep 2.3, not 2.2? Why not 2.5? IMO If you
^ Because it
is only
On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 09:40:48AM +1100, Donovan Baarda wrote:
Looking at testing shows heaps of python2-xxx packages, and even the dreaded
python-base. How do packages disappear from testing, should I file a release
critical bug against python-base?
Packages disappear from testing when
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 07:22:36AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
Anthony Towns writes:
python1.5's still useful to users, isn't it, especially ones with
important python programs
that was the precondition for the removal. Currently there are xtalk
and python-pam. I do not count pydb, because
Anthony Towns writes:
On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 08:00:20PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
If I don't hear a serious reason to keep python1.5, I plan to file a
bug report for ftp.debian.org to remove the python1.5 package.
Eh?
python1.5's still useful to users, isn't it, especially ones with
Donovan Baarda writes:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 11:53:24AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 08:00:20PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
If I don't hear a serious reason to keep python1.5, I plan to file a
bug report for ftp.debian.org to remove the python1.5 package.
On 10 Dec 2001, Matthias Klose typed:
] Anthony Towns writes:
] Dropping python1.5 doesn't seem a particularly clever thing to do.
] If we don't have any python1.5 dependencies, why not?
Because users will have no way of having both 1.5 and 2.1 on the same
machine as the woody python2.1 package
Kim Oldfield writes:
On 10 Dec 2001, Matthias Klose typed:
] Anthony Towns writes:
] Dropping python1.5 doesn't seem a particularly clever thing to do.
] If we don't have any python1.5 dependencies, why not?
Because users will have no way of having both 1.5 and 2.1 on the same
machine as
Quoting Jim Penny [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 11:44:27PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 07:22:36AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
Anthony Towns writes:
[...]
BTW: I have no feeling about dropping python-2.0; it appears that
portation from 2.0 to 2.1 is
On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 08:00:20PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
| It looks like the move to python (v2.1) is done. There are three
| packages remaining:
Also gadfly depends on 1.5. Unfortunately it appears stagnant
upstream (last release in '98). The testsuite passes for 2.1 but not
2.2. Both
On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 08:00:20PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
If I don't hear a serious reason to keep python1.5, I plan to file a
bug report for ftp.debian.org to remove the python1.5 package.
Eh?
python1.5's still useful to users, isn't it, especially ones with
important python programs
On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 10:22:12PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
| dman writes:
| On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 08:00:20PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
| | It looks like the move to python (v2.1) is done. There are three
| | packages remaining:
|
| Also gadfly depends on 1.5. Unfortunately it
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 11:53:24AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
| On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 08:00:20PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
| If I don't hear a serious reason to keep python1.5, I plan to file a
| bug report for ftp.debian.org to remove the python1.5 package.
|
| Eh?
|
| python1.5's still
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 11:53:24AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 08:00:20PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
If I don't hear a serious reason to keep python1.5, I plan to file a
bug report for ftp.debian.org to remove the python1.5 package.
Eh?
python1.5's still useful
It looks like the move to python (v2.1) is done. There are three
packages remaining:
- pydb: http://bugs.debian.org/119203
Not yet ported to 2.1, but we do have an alterbate debugger
available (idle).
- python-pam: http://bugs.debian.org/119213
See
Matthias Klose [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It looks like the move to python (v2.1) is done. There are three
packages remaining:
...
These packages are:
- pychecker
- python-pqueue
- python-egenix-mxbase
- python1.5-imaging
- python1.5-psycopg
I've also seen python1.5-orbit in incoming.
On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 08:26:49PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
Matthias Klose [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It looks like the move to python (v2.1) is done. There are three
packages remaining:
...
These packages are:
- pychecker
- python-pqueue
- python-egenix-mxbase
-
On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 08:00:20PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
- python-pam: http://bugs.debian.org/119213
See http://ftp-master.debian.org/~doko/python for a try.
However I couldn't get it reliably working ...
Could you please give more details on this? I do use this package and
dman writes:
On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 08:00:20PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
| It looks like the move to python (v2.1) is done. There are three
| packages remaining:
Also gadfly depends on 1.5. Unfortunately it appears stagnant
upstream (last release in '98). The testsuite passes for 2.1
Mikhail Sobolev writes:
On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 08:00:20PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
- python-pam: http://bugs.debian.org/119213
See http://ftp-master.debian.org/~doko/python for a try.
However I couldn't get it reliably working ...
Could you please give more details on this?
21 matches
Mail list logo
