Library package for multiple versions

2018-06-06 Thread Ervin Hegedüs
Hi,

I'm a (one of) maintainer of a library package, name is "hamlib":
https://packages.debian.org/sid/libhamlib2

Hamlib is a library for several languages, eg. Python, Perl, Lua,
Tcl, and of course, C and C++. The main goal is collect the
different HAM radio CAT controll API's to one API - that's a
quasi de facto RIG CAT library. Here are the upstream codebase(s):
https://github.com/Hamlib/Hamlib
https://sourceforge.net/projects/hamlib/

The code had written in C. All binding ports for languages made
with SWIG.
https://github.com/Hamlib/Hamlib/blob/master/bindings/hamlib.swg

About a year ago, the main developer of project made a short doc,
where he describes, how can we make the hamlib module for both
Python2 and Python3.
https://github.com/Hamlib/Hamlib/blob/master/bindings/README.python

There are some problems:
* as he write, the user needs to recompile at twice the binding;
  first for the Python 2, then need a "make clean", and then the
  Python 3
* this is because the naming convention of Python .so's are
  equal, eg. the final shared object will be _Hamlib.so

Now the Python module exists for Python2.
https://packages.debian.org/buster/python-libhamlib2

Could anybody help with some tips, how can I integrate the new,
Python3 module with the existing Python2?

Thanks,


Ervin
HA2OS





Re: Could somebody change the alioth documentation, have a buster roadmap and know what's missing to move to python 3 entirely.

2018-06-06 Thread Andrey Rahmatullin
On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 10:20:13PM +0530, shirish शिरीष wrote:
> Maybe it would have been better to say that right now python gives
> 
> $ python --version
> Python 2.7.15
> 
> To be more precise,  I meant to know if 'Bullseye' i.e Debian 11 would
> have python 3.0 as default or not.
/usr/bin/python will, too, never be a Python 3 executable.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Re: Could somebody change the alioth documentation, have a buster roadmap and know what's missing to move to python 3 entirely.

2018-06-06 Thread shirish शिरीष
at bottom :-

On 06/06/2018, shirish शिरीष  wrote:
> Dear Friends,
>
> I was just looking for documentation about what's keeping us from
> getting to python 3 but couldn't find anything which I could lay my
> finger on.
>
> I did find some obsolete documentation though on the wiki. The entries
> can be seen at -
>
> https://wiki.debian.org/Python
>
> and
>
> https://wiki.debian.org/Python/Python3Port
>
> The list addresses are of alioth glven therein. I am guessing most of
> those mails have been submerged in debian-python debian mailing list
> (i.e. here) probably.
>
> I was also looking for a BusterRoadmap on lines of the Stretch roadmap
> and the Jessie roadmap from before but didn't find anything :(
>
> https://wiki.debian.org/Python/StretchRoadmap
> https://wiki.debian.org/Python/JessieRoadmap
>
> I have also been trying to understand which packages/modules are
> remaining for python 3 to be the default-python
>
> $ apt-cache policy python
> python:
>   Installed: 2.7.15~rc1-1
>   Candidate: 2.7.15~rc1-1
>   Version table:
>  *** 2.7.15~rc1-1 500
> 500 http://cdn-fastly.deb.debian.org/debian buster/main amd64
> Packages
> 100 http://cdn-fastly.deb.debian.org/debian unstable/main amd64
> Packages
> 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
>
> Look forward to answers. I do remember of times reading documentation
> when the stdlib did not have all the libraries of a particular 3.x
> version. I also remember reading somewhere that we still used lot of
> python 2 scripts. Another could be that 2.7 will have support till
> 2020.
>
> In either way having a roadmap would be nice.
>

I just read Andrey's mail at
https://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2018/06/msg00024.html . Please
CC me if somebody replies.

Maybe it would have been better to say that right now python gives

$ python --version
Python 2.7.15

To be more precise,  I meant to know if 'Bullseye' i.e Debian 11 would
have python 3.0 as default or not.

-- 
  Regards,
  Shirish Agarwal  शिरीष अग्रवाल
  My quotes in this email licensed under CC 3.0
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/
http://flossexperiences.wordpress.com
EB80 462B 08E1 A0DE A73A  2C2F 9F3D C7A4 E1C4 D2D8



Re: Could somebody change the alioth documentation, have a buster roadmap and know what's missing to move to python 3 entirely.

2018-06-06 Thread Andrey Rahmatullin
On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 08:38:56PM +0530, shirish शिरीष wrote:
> I was just looking for documentation about what's keeping us from
> getting to python 3
Depends on your definition of "getting to python 3".

> I have also been trying to understand which packages/modules are
> remaining for python 3 to be the default-python
There is no default Python in Debian.

> $ apt-cache policy python
The python package will never contain Python 3.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Could somebody change the alioth documentation, have a buster roadmap and know what's missing to move to python 3 entirely.

2018-06-06 Thread shirish शिरीष
Dear Friends,

I was just looking for documentation about what's keeping us from
getting to python 3 but couldn't find anything which I could lay my
finger on.

I did find some obsolete documentation though on the wiki. The entries
can be seen at -

https://wiki.debian.org/Python

and

https://wiki.debian.org/Python/Python3Port

The list addresses are of alioth glven therein. I am guessing most of
those mails have been submerged in debian-python debian mailing list
(i.e. here) probably.

I was also looking for a BusterRoadmap on lines of the Stretch roadmap
and the Jessie roadmap from before but didn't find anything :(

https://wiki.debian.org/Python/StretchRoadmap
https://wiki.debian.org/Python/JessieRoadmap

I have also been trying to understand which packages/modules are
remaining for python 3 to be the default-python

$ apt-cache policy python
python:
  Installed: 2.7.15~rc1-1
  Candidate: 2.7.15~rc1-1
  Version table:
 *** 2.7.15~rc1-1 500
500 http://cdn-fastly.deb.debian.org/debian buster/main amd64 Packages
100 http://cdn-fastly.deb.debian.org/debian unstable/main amd64 Packages
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status

Look forward to answers. I do remember of times reading documentation
when the stdlib did not have all the libraries of a particular 3.x
version. I also remember reading somewhere that we still used lot of
python 2 scripts. Another could be that 2.7 will have support till
2020.

In either way having a roadmap would be nice.

-- 
  Regards,
  Shirish Agarwal  शिरीष अग्रवाल
  My quotes in this email licensed under CC 3.0
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/
http://flossexperiences.wordpress.com
EB80 462B 08E1 A0DE A73A  2C2F 9F3D C7A4 E1C4 D2D8



Joining Python Modules team

2018-06-06 Thread Andrius Merkys
Hello,

I would like to join the Python Modules team. I am preparing a package for 
python-reentry, which I would like to maintain together with the team. My salsa 
login is merkys-guest. I have read and I accept the policy as of 
https://web.archive.org/web/20171211221837/http://python-modules.alioth.debian.org/policy.html,
 since the alioth.debian.org is down.

Thanks,
Andrius

-- 
Andrius Merkys
Vilnius University Institute of Biotechnology, Saulėtekio al. 7, room V325
LT-10257 Vilnius, Lithuania




Joining the DPMT and PAPT teams

2018-06-06 Thread Stephen Kitt
Hi,

I would like to join the teams, at least to maintain PyQtCharts
(https://bugs.debian.org/892198). I also maintain the Python modules
python-evdev and python-libevdev, and the Python applications solaar,
ratbagd/libratbag, and perhaps others I’m forgetting right now. Some of those
have an upstream branch which corresponds to the real upstream branch rather
than imported tarballs, which I understand goes against the Python team’s
policy, so I’m not sure whether they’d be suitable for migration to team
maintenance; but I’d be happy to discuss that.

I read the policy before Alioth was shut down, and accept it (for packages
which I would maintain under the team umbrella).

My Salsa login is skitt.

Regards,

Stephen


pgpofxW4Us4Nb.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: Dask sourceless javascript passed by me.

2018-06-06 Thread Thomas Goirand
On 06/06/2018 06:30 AM, Diane Trout wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I discovered a mistake I made with packaging dask.
> 
> There's two static html files which embed some bokeh generated
> javascript plot code that's in dask 0.17.5 and I uploaded that to the
> Debian.
> 
> There doesn't appear to be source to build the files.
> 
> Bokeh is free software (BSD-3-Clause), but depends on a bunch of
> javascript libraries so isn't available in Debian.
> 
> I should have repacked the archive to remove them, but I'm working on a
> -2 release, and there's no new upstream release yet for me to use as a
> base for repack.
> 
> I was planning on patching the references to the .html files out and
> removing them in the debian/rules files.
> 
> But is that enough?
> 
> Diane

In my experience, it is ok to just remove the minified javascript in a
patch *IF* (and only if) there is normal code next to it, which isn't
your case. So you must produce a +dfsg orig tarball.

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)