Re: Bug#834768: RFS: codicefiscale/0.9-1

2016-08-20 Thread Paul Wise
On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 10:05 PM, Elena ``of Valhalla'' wrote: > Thanks. I currently check packages with lintian (--pedantic) and > piuparts, and I sort-of-know-but-still-don't-use check-all-the-things: If it helps convince you to use it, installing without recommends will lead to knowing which

Re: on keep providing python 2 packages

2016-08-20 Thread Rick Thomas
On Aug 20, 2016, at 1:19 PM, Sandro Tosi wrote: > i'd like to hear the opinion of the dpmt admins and python maintainers > on the OP matter: public module py2 mandatory support, or -in a > boarder shape- to provide debian packages for all the versions of > python an upstream

Re: on keep providing python 2 packages

2016-08-20 Thread Piotr Ożarowski
[Sandro Tosi, 2016-08-20] > i'd like to hear the opinion of the dpmt admins and python maintainers > on the OP matter: public module py2 mandatory support, or -in a > boarder shape- to provide debian packages for all the versions of > python an upstream public module supports in its code. IMO: *

Re: on keep providing python 2 packages

2016-08-20 Thread Sandro Tosi
On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 8:05 PM, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 05:42:24PM +0100, Sandro Tosi wrote: > > anyway, why wouldnt you want to provide a python2 package if the code > > supports it? if you got a py3k package working, it's usually > >

Re: on keep providing python 2 packages

2016-08-20 Thread Mattia Rizzolo
On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 05:42:24PM +0100, Sandro Tosi wrote: > anyway, why wouldnt you want to provide a python2 package if the code > supports it? if you got a py3k package working, it's usually > straightforward to have a py pkg. Doing that i've found several issues > with upsteam projects that

Re: on keep providing python 2 packages

2016-08-20 Thread Sandro Tosi
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 6:26 PM, Dmitry Shachnev wrote: > Hi Sandro, > > On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 11:49:25AM +0100, Sandro Tosi wrote: >> > For example, I have a module (which supports both Python 2 and 3), but >> > the only user of this module is an app (which is Python 3

Re: Bug#834768: RFS: codicefiscale/0.9-1

2016-08-20 Thread Elena ``of Valhalla''
On 2017-08-19 at 20:54:34 +, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > No, it just means that I rashed too much at reviewing it last night and > was already sleeping. > I didn't notice all those files where inside a directory -.-' lol :) > > That's exactly the issue, I've added a comment with a pointer to >

Re: on keep providing python 2 packages

2016-08-20 Thread Elena ``of Valhalla''
On 2016-08-19 at 13:42:52 +0300, Dmitry Shachnev wrote: > For example, I have a module (which supports both Python 2 and 3), but > the only user of this module is an app (which is Python 3 only). > > What’s the point of shipping the Python 2 version of that module then? Speaking with the