On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 23:17, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> OoO En ce début d'après-midi ensoleillé du dimanche 28 février 2010,
> vers 15:29, je disais:
>
>> Well, I disagree. Python 2.6 is not the default. Packages are currently
>> built with Python 2.5 and do not fail to build in a current pbui
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 23:11, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> I also tend to believe that there are a lot of packages that will just
> fail to run with Python 2.6 but will have no problem to build, because
> for most packages, building just means to copy files in the right
> location. The late
Vincent Bernat writes:
> For whoever may be interested, I use this hook for pbuilder:
Thanks, that saves me the trouble of writing and testing it :-)
--
\ “Holy polar ice sheet, Batman!” —Robin |
`\
OoO En ce début d'après-midi ensoleillé du dimanche 28 février 2010,
vers 15:29, je disais:
> Well, I disagree. Python 2.6 is not the default. Packages are currently
> built with Python 2.5 and do not fail to build in a current pbuilder. We
> already had a bunch of bug reports about packa
OoO Vers la fin de l'après-midi du dimanche 28 février 2010, vers 16:46,
Josselin Mouette disait :
>> It would be far easier to let Python 2.6 be the default, then file (or
>> upgrade) serious bugs and solve them in a week or two.
> Yeah sure, let’s knowingly break dozens of packages by swit
* Jonathan Wiltshire (deb...@jwiltshire.org.uk) [100228 17:19]:
> On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 04:46:09PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Le dimanche 28 février 2010 à 15:29 +0100, Vincent Bernat a écrit :
> > > It would be far easier to let Python 2.6 be the default, then file (or
> > > upgrade)
Jonathan Wiltshire (28/02/2010):
> I think we need to do both before we end up running out of time. I
> propose that we upgrade/file bugs as serious so that they get
> maintainer attention where possible, and allow (let's say) 7 days to
> react.
What about providing with patches instead of only p
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 04:46:09PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le dimanche 28 février 2010 à 15:29 +0100, Vincent Bernat a écrit :
> > It would be far easier to let Python 2.6 be the default, then file (or
> > upgrade) serious bugs and solve them in a week or two.
>
> Yeah sure, let’s kn
* Josselin Mouette (j...@debian.org) [100228 16:50]:
> Le dimanche 28 février 2010 à 15:29 +0100, Vincent Bernat a écrit :
> > It would be far easier to let Python 2.6 be the default, then file (or
> > upgrade) serious bugs and solve them in a week or two.
>
> Yeah sure, let’s knowingly break
Le dimanche 28 février 2010 à 15:29 +0100, Vincent Bernat a écrit :
> It would be far easier to let Python 2.6 be the default, then file (or
> upgrade) serious bugs and solve them in a week or two.
Yeah sure, let’s knowingly break dozens of packages by switching instead
of fixing them before
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 15:29, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> OoO Pendant le journal télévisé du samedi 27 février 2010, vers 20:19,
> Luca Falavigna disait :
>
>> after some discussions on #debian-python, I'd like to propose
>> increasing severity of Python 2.6 related bugs [1] to serious.
>
> Well,
OoO Pendant le journal télévisé du samedi 27 février 2010, vers 20:19,
Luca Falavigna disait :
> after some discussions on #debian-python, I'd like to propose
> increasing severity of Python 2.6 related bugs [1] to serious.
Well, I disagree. Python 2.6 is not the default. Packages are current
12 matches
Mail list logo
