Re: Offer to help with packaging

2020-07-07 Thread Pablo Mestre

El 7/1/20 a las 10:58 PM, Nicholas D Steeves escribió:
> []
> If you're committed to packaging python lsp, then set yourself as the
> owner of #96360, and retitle it, replacing "RFP" with "ITP".
> If the absence of a python-jsonrpc-server package is a blocker for
> #963605, and you want to work on it, then file an ITP for
> python-jsonrpc-server, set yourself as owner, and also set up a blocks
> relationship between the two bugs.
> []
>   Control: command -1 arguments
> "-1" is a convenient alias for the bug number.  For more info, see the
> man bts(1), the server-control documentation, and Developer's Reference:
> Cheers,
> Nicholas

New ITP submited
I hope to finish this package as soon as possible so that the Python IDE
Spyder process can continue to its
latest version.



Re: Python3 -dbg packages

2020-07-07 Thread Dmitry Shachnev
Hi Matthias!

On Mon, Jul 06, 2020 at 08:33:39PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Python 3.8 upstream now has a common ABI for normal and debug extension
> builds, so it is technically possible to load a debug extension in
> the normal interpreter, or to load a normal extension in the debug
> interpreter.

Packages from the PyQt5 stack (pyqt5, pyqt5chart, pyqt5webengine, qscintilla2)
have recently started to use PEP 384 limited ABI (the built files are named
* However, when a debug interpreter is used for build, the build
system disables this feature and builds a normal *.cpython-38d-*.so file:

Because of this, I decided to still build -dbg versions for these packages.

Do you know how much the -dbg interpreter is compatible with * files?
I just checked, and apparently it can import them, but maybe there is some
benefit in keeping the normal debug versions too?

Dmitry Shachnev

Description: PGP signature

Re: Timing of Python upstream and Debian releases

2020-07-07 Thread Ondrej Novy

po 6. 7. 2020 v 21:04 odesílatel Matthias Klose  napsal:

> So what I'm proposing here is to aim to support 3.9 as early as possible
> as a
> supported Python3 version, starting with the 3.9 upstream release, and
> fixing
> stuff on the go.  Then decide in November, if we can do the defaults
> change to
> 3.9, or if we drop 3.9 again, or ship with two supported Python3 versions.

+1 for this proposal.

Best regards
 Ondřej Nový

Re: pybuild vs os-pkg-tools [was: Maintaining all of the testing-cabal packages under the OpenStack team]

2020-07-07 Thread Ondrej Novy

po 6. 7. 2020 v 11:09 odesílatel Thomas Goirand  napsal:

> This isn't about hating or loving pybuild. This is all about being able
> to control how this set of packages are build globally (the whole set of
> packages.

so you could wrap these global things around pybuild, right?

Best regards
 Ondřej Nový