Re: upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye

2021-02-16 Thread Bastian Venthur
On 12.02.21 01:11, Thomas Goirand wrote: I understand that upstream python guys probably think the way to consume python stuff is through venv, pip, and setuptools. I have a very different view on this, and probably I'm not alone. We (Debian people) indeed prefer if our user can enjoy a

Re: upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye

2021-02-16 Thread Stefano Rivera
Hi Bastian (2021.02.16_09:17:18_+) > heck, even PIP is outdated in a way that you actually have to `pip > install -U pip` in order to use it properly due to the recent > manylinux change. Hrm, we probably should be backporting support for manylinux2014. Care to file a bug against pip? SR --

Re: upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye

2021-02-16 Thread Thomas Goirand
On 2/16/21 5:25 AM, Stefano Rivera wrote: > Hi debian-python (2021.02.11_18:24:57_+) >> I have prepared a policy MR for this: >> https://salsa.debian.org/cpython-team/python3-defaults/-/merge_requests/8 >> It catches up on the current split situation, too. > > We had a discussion on the

Re: upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye

2021-02-16 Thread Jeremy Stanley
On 2021-02-16 18:24:20 + (+), Stefano Rivera wrote: > Hi Bastian (2021.02.16_09:17:18_+) > > heck, even PIP is outdated in a way that you actually have to `pip > > install -U pip` in order to use it properly due to the recent > > manylinux change. > > Hrm, we probably should be

Re: Python package situation

2021-02-16 Thread Andrey Rahmatullin
On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 09:48:05PM +0100, Martin wrote: > > I *wish* I could > > just install everything via the Debian Packaging System, but the reality for > > most relevant Python packages is very different: packages are either > > outdated or do not exist in Debian > > Are you talking about

Python package situation

2021-02-16 Thread Martin
On 2021-02-16 10:17, Bastian Venthur wrote: > I *wish* I could > just install everything via the Debian Packaging System, but the reality for > most relevant Python packages is very different: packages are either > outdated or do not exist in Debian Are you talking about many packages? Or only

Re: Python package situation

2021-02-16 Thread Martin
On 2021-02-17 02:13, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > Are you asking about testing or stable? Because for stable the "packages > are either outdated or do not exist" situation is somewhat expected and > testing is not that interesting case, though even in testing we may have a > lot of outdated

Re: Python package situation

2021-02-16 Thread Brian May
Andrey Rahmatullin writes: > On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 09:48:05PM +0100, Martin wrote: > Are you asking about testing or stable? Because for stable the "packages > are either outdated or do not exist" situation is somewhat expected and > testing is not that interesting case, though even in testing

Re: Python package situation

2021-02-16 Thread Andrey Rahmatullin
On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 11:51:52AM +1100, Brian May wrote: > I believe there are a number of Python packages in Debian unstable that > are out of date in respect to latest upstream. > > e.g. > > https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=bam%40debian.org=yes > > Somebody needs to do the work to