Hi,
I packaged python-jsonref as per this ITP:
https://bugs.debian.org/844986, this is the repo:
https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/python-modules/packages/python-jsonref.git
Please someone more experienced than me review it and if it's OK sponsor
its upload.
Thanks,
Paolo
signature.asc
Descrip
Hi,
I packaged python-patch as per this ITP:
https://bugs.debian.org/845482, this is the repo:
https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/python-modules/packages/python-patch.git
Please someone more experienced than me review it and if it's OK sponsor
its upload.
Please note that since the pypi tarball has
On Nov 28, 2016, at 01:56 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>I'm starting to work on pip 9.0.1 but noticed two new dependencies. appdirs
>1.4.0 we have, but distro 1.0.1 we don't. It doesn't look like there's an ITP
>for that, so I'll file that bug.
Okay, as soon as python-distro clears new, I'll upload
On Nov 21, 2016, at 06:37 PM, Donald Stufft wrote:
>As one might expect, I would prefer it if folks got 9.0.1 as quickly as
>possible. In particular the feature that makes it easier for upstreams to
>drop Python 2 support is one that is really only effective when people can
>consider pip 9 a "mini
On Monday, November 28, 2016 05:50:24 PM Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> [Scott Kitterman, 2016-11-28]
>
> > I've recently done some Django related packaging for the first time and
> > noticed that we have organically (as far as I can tell) grown a slightly
> > different naming convention for such packag
[Barry Warsaw, 2016-11-28]
> Is there any risk of having confusing names because of a conflict between a
> 3rd party Django module and a Django subpackage? e.g. python3-django-foo
> vs. python3-django.foo.
>
> I'm sure it's a non-issue in practice.
this is a huge issue IMHO beacause Django submo
[Scott Kitterman, 2016-11-28]
> I've recently done some Django related packaging for the first time and
> noticed that we have organically (as far as I can tell) grown a slightly
> different naming convention for such packages. Instead of python*-foo, we
> use
> python*-django-foo.
>
> I thin
+1
On 28/11/2016 17:11, Scott Kitterman wrote:
Snark on #debian-python
On Nov 28, 2016, at 11:11 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>@@ -534,6 +534,13 @@
> This requirement also applies to extension modules; binaries for all
> the supported Python versions should be included in a single package.
>
>+ As a special exception to the `python3-' and `python-' binar
I've recently done some Django related packaging for the first time and
noticed that we have organically (as far as I can tell) grown a slightly
different naming convention for such packages. Instead of python*-foo, we use
python*-django-foo.
I think this is a reasonable approach and followed
10 matches
Mail list logo
