Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Copyright (c) 2006 Manoj Srivastava
>
>Revision History
>Revision 1.0.5 4^th November 2006
Setember?
--
O T A V I OS A L V A D O R
-
Hi,
This is version 1.05 of the draft, now with typo fixes, and
some initial policy support for partial upgrades for pure python
public modules that are trying to drop support for older versions of
python. The idea is that error cases are minimized if we do not drop
a version of python
Hi,
I have some more thoughts to offer on the example Steve
presented: in essence, he is talking about a package that has become
incompatible with the version that was in stable.
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 23:03:13 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> On Sun, Aug 13, 2006 at 0
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 23:03:13 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sun, Aug 13, 2006 at 07:56:09PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> OK, I see I have to dot the i's and cross the t's for this case
>> here. So, here is the scenario: package python-foo packages a
>> public pure pyth
On Sun, Aug 13, 2006 at 07:56:09PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> OK, I see I have to dot the i's and cross the t's for this
> case here. So, here is the scenario: package python-foo packages a
> public pure python module. Package bar imports the module
> foo. Package baz is a packa
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 11:21:07 +1000, Robert Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sun, 2006-08-13 at 19:56 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Here there are two cases. Either module foo can't be written at all
>> for version 2.6, or it the same functionality can be provided with
> This is a littl
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 23:37:15 +0200, Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Le dim 13 août 2006 22:17, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
>> As to the BOF thing, I'll bite: Why one earth did the bof
>> come up with design decisiosn that require every single goldarned
>> python module package
On Sun, 2006-08-13 at 19:56 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>Here there are two cases. Either module foo can't be written at all
>for version 2.6, or it the same functionality can be provided with
This is a little simplistic.
The parser changes fairly routinely in python versions. This me
Hi,
OK, I see I have to dot the i's and cross the t's for this
case here. So, here is the scenario: package python-foo packages a
public pure python module. Package bar imports the module
foo. Package baz is a package not yet written that would be written
for Python2.6 that would als
Le dim 13 août 2006 22:17, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
> As to the BOF thing, I'll bite: Why one earth did the bof come
> up with design decisiosn that require every single goldarned python
> module package to be reuploaded every time a new version of python
> is added or removed?
actuall
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 10:28:43 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sun, Aug 13, 2006 at 03:32:27AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 00:01:37 -0700, Steve Langasek
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 12:10:07PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrot
On Sun, Aug 13, 2006 at 03:32:27AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 00:01:37 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 12:10:07PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> >> 3.1.3. Provides
> >> >> Packages with public modules and extensions shoul
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 00:01:37 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 12:10:07PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >> 3.1.3. Provides
>> >>
>> >> Packages with public modules and extensions should be named, or
>> >> should provide, python-foo. Pure Python public
On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 12:10:07PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> 3.1.3. Provides
> >>
> >> Packages with public modules and extensions should be named, or
> >> should provide, python-foo. Pure Python public modules that support
> >> all Python versions need not have a Provides field.
> > .
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 17:34:06 +0200, Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava writes:
>> policy document. The current version, and future updates, are to be
>> found at http://www.golden-gryphon.com/software/manoj-policy/
Unfortunately, you are commenting on an old vers
Le sam 12 août 2006 17:34, Matthias Klose a écrit :
> Manoj Srivastava writes:
> > policy document. The current version, and future updates, are to
> > be found at http://www.golden-gryphon.com/software/manoj-policy/
>
> unreachable, comments for the posted text follow
doh, that works for me ?!
Le sam 12 août 2006 17:34, Matthias Klose a écrit :
> dh_pysupport doesn't
> use this information, but requires the developer to explicitely pass
> the directory containing the extension module.
that's not completely true, it only searches in /usr/lib/$pkg,
/usr/share/$pkg, /usr/lib/games/$pkg an
Manoj Srivastava writes:
> policy document. The current version, and future updates, are to be
> found at http://www.golden-gryphon.com/software/manoj-policy/
unreachable, comments for the posted text follow
> 1.1. Categorization of Python software
>
>Program/script
>
> Thi
Le mardi 08 août 2006 à 14:33 -0500, Joe Wreschnig a écrit :
> > * current has not a constant meaning, as it depends of the state of the
> >package python-defaults, and not only of the state of the archive
> >when the package was uploaded. This is IMHO the biggest flaw of that
> >field
Le mar 8 août 2006 21:33, Joe Wreschnig a écrit :
> It's possible to build Python modules for all versions with only
> python-dev, if they are pure Python modules (feedparser is such a
> package, its dependency on python-all-dev is extraneous and could be
> just python-dev). So simply looking at th
Le mer 9 août 2006 01:33, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> Another day, another draft.
>
> Here is the latest update for my take on the new Python
> policy document. The current version, and future updates, are to be
> found at http://www.golden-gryphon.com/software/manoj-pol
Hi,
Another day, another draft.
Here is the latest update for my take on the new Python
policy document. The current version, and future updates, are to be
found at http://www.golden-gryphon.com/software/manoj-policy/
I am including a text version below.
manoj
On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 13:41 +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> Le mar 8 août 2006 00:18, Pierre Habouzit a écrit :
> current explicitely says that the package is only built for the current
> python version, and not for any other supported in debian. But I don't
> like that value for the following re
Le mar 8 août 2006 00:18, Pierre Habouzit a écrit :
> § 2.3.3, 2.4.2, 2.5.3, 2.6.2:
> *here* the python$version alternative is correct,
> because /extensions/ can be used with a '/usr/bin/python' as soon
> as the python current version is in their supported range.
>
> so take the previous a
my changes proposals follow. {+ +} are part I've actually modified.
Le lun 7 août 2006 21:42, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> Here is round two of my take on python policy. I have
> incorporate the correction offered by various people, and read the
> documents for python-central and
Hi,
Here is round two of my take on python policy. I have
incorporate the correction offered by various people, and read the
documents for python-central and python-support, and incorporated my
understanding of those into this document.
So, this is my take on the new python pol
Le mardi 01 août 2006 à 09:45 -0500, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
> >> Public extensions should be packaged with a name of python-foo,
> >> where foo is the name of the module. Such a package should support
> >> the current Debian Python version, and more if possible.
>
> > Maybe a word on how publi
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Could you point me to documentation on python-support, what it
> does, how to use it, and how it differs from python-central?
Well, python-support is documented at the expected
/usr/share/doc/python-support and in the dh_pysupport man page
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 09:35:56 +0200, Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2006, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> 2.1. [5]XS-Python-Version: 2.2. [6]XB-Python-Version:
> Your document keeps mentionning these, even as "requirements", but
> XB- isn't required for packages using python-
On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 09:55:39 +0200, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Le lundi 31 juillet 2006 à 21:10 -0500, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
>> Public modules are available for use in other Python scripts or
>> modules using the import directive. They are installed in one of
>> the directo
Le lundi 31 juillet 2006 à 21:10 -0500, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
> Public modules are available for use in other Python scripts or
>modules using the import directive. They are installed in one of
>the directories
>
> /var/lib/python-support/pyth
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> 2.1. [5]XS-Python-Version:
> 2.2. [6]XB-Python-Version:
Your document keeps mentionning these, even as "requirements", but XB-
isn't required for packages using python-support, and XS can be
replaced by debian/pyver
Hi,
I have finished my initial analysis of Python policy and
dh_python, and created a rough specification of what the python
policy is supposed to be (based on current dh_python behaviour). The
current analysis, and future updates, are to be found at
http://www.golden-gryphon.com/soft
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have finished my initial analysis of Python policy and
> dh_python, and created a rough specification of what the python
> policy is supposed to be (based on current dh_python behaviour). The
> current analysis, and future updates, are to be found at
34 matches
Mail list logo
