Re: Bug#943666: python3: Update Python Policy for removal of the Python 2 stack
On 03/11/2019 15:16, Matthias Klose wrote: > On 03.11.19 15:09, Neil Williams wrote: >> * do not remove python-foo-doc or rename it to python3-foo-doc > > yes, but this tells you not to rename it to python3-foo-doc. Perhaps there is a doubt how to read it? - do not (remove python-foo-doc or rename it to python3-foo-doc) - (do not remove python-foo-doc) or (rename it to python3-foo-doc) Would it be better if we remove the indentation and use this sentence(?): if documentation is in python-foo-doc, do not move it Stéphane signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Bug#943666: python3: Update Python Policy for removal of the Python 2 stack
Stéphane Blondon writes: > Perhaps there is a doubt how to read it? > - do not (remove python-foo-doc or rename it to python3-foo-doc) > - (do not remove python-foo-doc) or (rename it to python3-foo-doc) > > Would it be better if we remove the indentation and use this sentence(?): > if documentation is in python-foo-doc, do not move it Myself, I read it as the first option. I would personally use: - Do not remove python-foo-doc and do not rename it to python3-foo-doc. Or maybe even expand as two bullet points: - Do not remove python-foo-doc. - Do not rename it to python3-foo-doc. I think this makes it very explicit what was intended. -- Brian May
Re: Bug#943666: python3: Update Python Policy for removal of the Python 2 stack
Brian May writes: > Stéphane Blondon writes: > >> Perhaps there is a doubt how to read it? >> - do not (remove python-foo-doc or rename it to python3-foo-doc) >> - (do not remove python-foo-doc) or (rename it to python3-foo-doc) >> >> Would it be better if we remove the indentation and use this sentence(?): >> if documentation is in python-foo-doc, do not move it > > Myself, I read it as the first option. > > I would personally use: > > - Do not remove python-foo-doc and do not rename it to python3-foo-doc. > > Or maybe even expand as two bullet points: > > - Do not remove python-foo-doc. > - Do not rename it to python3-foo-doc. > > I think this makes it very explicit what was intended. +1. I also read it as (do (not (remove python-foo-doc) or (not (rename to python3-foo-doc. In natural language that "or" should be a "nor", but breaking it into two negated bullet points may be clearer to those whose first language doesn't possess a negative list operator. Cheers, Nicholas signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#944261: ITB: python-seaborn -- Python data visualization library
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Christian Kastner X-Debbugs-CC: debian-de...@lists.debian.org, debian-python@lists.debian.org, debian-scie...@lists.debian.org * Package name: python-seaborn Version : 0.9.0 Upstream Author : Michael Waskom * URL : https://seaborn.pydata.org * License : BSD-3-clause Programming Lang: Python3 Description : Python data visualization library Seaborn is a Python data visualization library based on matplotlib. It provides a high-level interface for drawing attractive and informative statistical graphics. This will be maintained within the Debian Science Team.
Re: Bug#943666: python3: Update Python Policy for removal of the Python 2 stack
On 06.11.19 22:04, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: Brian May writes: Stéphane Blondon writes: Perhaps there is a doubt how to read it? - do not (remove python-foo-doc or rename it to python3-foo-doc) - (do not remove python-foo-doc) or (rename it to python3-foo-doc) Would it be better if we remove the indentation and use this sentence(?): if documentation is in python-foo-doc, do not move it Myself, I read it as the first option. I would personally use: - Do not remove python-foo-doc and do not rename it to python3-foo-doc. Or maybe even expand as two bullet points: - Do not remove python-foo-doc. - Do not rename it to python3-foo-doc. I think this makes it very explicit what was intended. +1. I also read it as (do (not (remove python-foo-doc) or (not (rename to python3-foo-doc. In natural language that "or" should be a "nor", but breaking it into two negated bullet points may be clearer to those whose first language doesn't possess a negative list operator. please could one of you open an issue with a patch to track the change? Thanks, Matthias