Re: Binary naming for Django Related Packages

2016-12-03 Thread Jeremy Stanley
On 2016-12-03 17:01:45 +0100 (+0100), Thomas Goirand wrote: [...] > Because of problems when doing imports in Python3 (in a venv, the system > module wont be loaded if it's there and there's already something in the > venv), we should attempt to discourage upstream to use namespaced > modules.

How to deal with jupyter notebook extensions

2016-12-03 Thread Ximin Luo
+debian-python@ Jupyter Notebook allows for the installation of "extensions". Users typically download an extension, then run something like this: $ jupyter nbextension install # or python/python3 -m notebook.extension install [..] $ jupyter nbextension enable# likewise We're trying to

Re: Binary naming for Django Related Packages

2016-12-03 Thread Thomas Goirand
On 11/28/2016 05:11 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > I've recently done some Django related packaging for the first time and > noticed that we have organically (as far as I can tell) grown a slightly > different naming convention for such packages. Instead of python*-foo, we > use >

Re: Binary naming for Django Related Packages

2016-12-03 Thread Thomas Goirand
On 11/28/2016 05:30 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Nov 28, 2016, at 11:11 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > >> @@ -534,6 +534,13 @@ >> This requirement also applies to extension modules; binaries for all >> the supported Python versions should be included in a single package. >> >> + As a