On Tuesday, November 29, 2016 02:40:06 PM Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> [Scott Kitterman, 2016-11-29]
>
> > Piotr: Is there some language that acknowledges the situation as unusual,
> > even if it doesn't fully bless it that you'd be comfortable with in
> > policy so we can at least document current
[Scott Kitterman, 2016-11-29]
> Piotr: Is there some language that acknowledges the situation as unusual,
> even
> if it doesn't fully bless it that you'd be comfortable with in policy so we
> can at least document current practice?
if module name is foo, name of the binary package should be
On Tuesday, November 29, 2016 01:52:07 PM Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2016, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > > > Please let me know what you think. I'm open to suggestions on
> > > > wording.
> > > > I'd like to get this done in the next week and do a python-defaults
> > > > upload with
On Mon, 28 Nov 2016, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > > Please let me know what you think. I'm open to suggestions on wording.
> > > I'd like to get this done in the next week and do a python-defaults
> > > upload with this and a few minor (non-policy) changes that are pending.
+1 from me. I'm
On Mon, 28 Nov 2016, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> [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
5 matches
Mail list logo