Re: joining the python modules packaging team

Hello, On Thu, 05 Apr 2007, Michel Casabona wrote: Hello, I'd like to join the team to maintain the python-hachoir packages that I build, which will be soon uploaded to debian (thanks a lot to Piotr Ożarowski), and help maintaining other packages if possible. You have been added. Welcome

Making all DD members of the team by default

Hello, this mail is crossposted to two mailing lists. Please reply only to the one that concerns you (perl or python team). The collab-maint project gives write access to all DD by default using ACL (see man setfacl and getfacl). $ getfacl /svn/collab-maint/ [...] group:Debian:rwx [...]

Packaging django-openid ? and django dev release in experimental ?

Hello Brett, I was looking for some OpenID support in Django and found out http://code.google.com/p/django-openid/ Would you be interested in packaging this ? Also, given the long time between two stable releases of Django it might be worth packaging development release in experimental. What do

Re: Making all DD members of the team by default

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Raphael Hertzog wrote: Hello, this mail is crossposted to two mailing lists. Please reply only to the one that concerns you (perl or python team). This warning is still valid. :-) As an Alioth admin, I can add those ACL. However I'd like to have your opinion

Re: maintainer field

On Thu, 06 Sep 2007, Steve Langasek wrote: So I myself chose to be among Uploaders and set Maintainer to DPMT, because this more enforces team work and I like team work. I had a discussion on #debian-devel about this, and they thought it was pretty stupid to have DPMT as uploader, as

Re: Bugs that'll block python 2.5

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008, Adeodato Simó wrote: * Josselin Mouette [Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:28:00 +0200]: The solution is really simple, just add them to python’s Provides: list. Plus, uhm, can't really be done for (c)elementtree, since python 2.5 provides the modules under a different

Re: Migration of Alioth account

Hi, On Fri, 18 Apr 2008, Vincent Bernat wrote: Could someone with appropriate rights remove my account bernat-guest and add bernat instead? Already done by Piotr apparently. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch :

Re: Unexpected Depends: both python-central and python-support

On Mon, 16 Jun 2008, Ben Finney wrote: What's causing this, and how can I fix it so it doesn't have this unexpected extra dependency? It's because dh (from debhelper 7) will use dh_pysupport by default if it's available. Just use what debhelper uses by default or make sure to skip that script

Re: Bug#500391: ITP: python-django-debug-toolbar -- Embedded debugging toolbar for Django projects

On Sun, 28 Sep 2008, Chris Lamb wrote: Raphael Hertzog wrote: Do you plan to maintain the various Django related packages in the python-modules team ? I'm open to persuasion on this, otherwise no. Well, I'm maintaining like you several Django related packages (python-django itself

Bug#517308: python-syck: lacks a python-support dependency

Package: python-syck Version: 0.61.2-1 Severity: serious The package uses python-support but does not depend on it. The dependency should be auto-generated in a substvar, you just have to add the proper substvar. Note: the package is unmaintained, someone from the python team should probably

Re: Quick analysis of the Python dist-packages transition

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009, Josselin Mouette wrote: If there are no objections, I will submit a MBF for those 75 packages in a few days. Go ahead, we have waited too much for python 2.6 already. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a

Re: ${python:Breaks}

On Thu, 10 Mar 2011, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: seriously, THERE WILL BE NO NEW PYTHON 2.X VERSION RELEASED UPSTREAM¹, we don't have to worry about 2.X transitions when 2.7 will become the only supported one. If you don't like Breaks, I will remove it, it really doesn't matter - that's why at the

Maintainer needed for python-trml2pdf

Hello, I just uploaded a new version of python-trml2pdf where I removed myself from Uploaders. I originally packaged this because it's needed for Satchmo but I never went further to package satchmo. So I have no interest in this package. In the mean time it got one reverse dependency, namely

Re: Is python-django still maintained in DPMT svn?

Hi Barry, On Tue, 28 Jan 2014, Barry Warsaw wrote: As the package is supposed to be team maintained, I'm wondering *where* it's maintained. I have some patches to fix build failures against Sphinx 1.2.1. Good question. Luke, are you using git-svn and you forgot to push or something? PS. I

Help needed to test packages with Django 1.7

(Please cc me as I'm not subscribed) Hello, I have filed 85 bugs against all reverse-deps of python-django to ask their maintainers to ensure that their packages works well with Django 1.7 (1). A good chunk of those are maintained or co-maintained by the Python Modules team, and as usual in a

Problem migrating from South to Django migrations for Linux distributions

[ Please keep me in CC ] Hello, I'm one of the python-django Debian package maintainers and I have been working on preparing the field for Django 1.7... and we have one problem that we don't know how to handle. Consider that Debian contains Django but also Django applications using South. When

Re: Problem migrating from South to Django migrations for Linux distributions

Hi Brian, On Fri, 25 Jul 2014, Brian May wrote: I can't help but think this might be unrealistic (?). Changes required for new versions of Django often break compatibility with old versions, and 1.4.5 is really old now. Just because many packages don't have versioned dependencies on Django

Re: Problem migrating from South to Django migrations for Linux distributions

Hi Andrew, thanks for your quick answer. On Thu, 24 Jul 2014, Andrew Godwin wrote: There is no way around this; it's unfortunate that the packaging situation means that Django will get auto-upgraded as part of a distribution upgrade; I'm surprised that Debian hasn't had this with packages

Re: Help needed to test packages with Django 1.7

On Sun, 03 Aug 2014, Brian May wrote: Django 1.7 final isn't even released upstream, and therefore, downstream projects didn't even try to run against it. There *will* be issues we will have to deal with. 85 packages is quite something. I'm ok, and even welcome to *try* to make it before

Re: Two django packages for Debian?

Hi, On Tue, 05 Aug 2014, Matthew Vernon wrote: https://git.csx.cam.ac.uk/x/ucs/u/mcv21/django-grappelli.git https://git.csx.cam.ac.uk/x/ucs/u/mcv21/django-stronghold.git [...] Naturally, I'd like to upload these as maintained by python-modules-t...@lists.alioth.debian.org. Is that going to be

Re: Two django packages for Debian?

Hi Matthew, On Wed, 06 Aug 2014, Matthew Vernon wrote: Is 1.7 released yet? At least Grappelli only aims to work with released versions, so I think it's currently only 1.6-compatible. I'd expect 1.7-support to be along once that's been out for a bit. 1.7 will be out in a few days/weeks and we

Re: Help needed to test packages with Django 1.7

On Thu, 07 Aug 2014, Brian May wrote: On 23 July 2014 15:58, Brian May br...@microcomaustralia.com.au wrote: You are expected to do all database migrations with Django 1.6, then upgrade to Django 1.7 Some more thoughts. Are there any packages in Debian that attempt to automatically

Re: Two django packages for Debian?

So let me give my own answer to some of the questions asked here. On Wed, 06 Aug 2014, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: However, it does not integrate with git-dpm at the moment and there is no clear conversion / vcs history import available. Do we care about preserving vcs history for our packages?

Re: Two django packages for Debian?

On Wed, 13 Aug 2014, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: [Raphael Hertzog, 2014-08-13] * old patch needs an update, what should I do? (quilt edit? quilt refresh? XYZ rebase on a different branch?) * new patch is needed, how can I add it? (quilt new? another branch?) I don't see the need

Re: guardian and django1.7

Hi, On Tue, 19 Aug 2014, Brian May wrote: For example, I renamed migrations to south_migrations and created a Django1.7 compliant migrations directory, however still get the same error. Did you fill that new directory with an initial migration generated with ./manage.py makemigrations?

Re: Playing with git-dpm

Hi Barry, On Tue, 19 Aug 2014, Barry Warsaw wrote: * The egg-info directory is a PITA. The upstream tarball has a lazr.smtptest.egg-info directory. debuild -S blows this away, and then git thinks I want to delete it. It doesn't get staged, so it's easy to `git checkout --

Re: Playing with git-dpm

On Wed, 20 Aug 2014, Barry Warsaw wrote: So, because of the way I've named the branches, the full invocation is: $ git-buildpackage -S --git-export-dir=../build-area/ --git-debian-branch=lazr.smtptest --git-upstream-tree=upstream-lazr.smtptest So --git-export-dir is usally best set in

Re: Playing with git-buildpackage

Hi, On Thu, 21 Aug 2014, Barry Warsaw wrote: Then I `git init`'d a new local repository and used `gbp import-dsc` to initialize the git information. That seemed to work just fine. FWIW, I usually setup the repository on git.debian.org first and then I clone that empty repository. With this

Re: Playing with git-buildpackage

On Fri, 22 Aug 2014, Barry Warsaw wrote: Why would you push your temporary branch? Only because `git push --all` seems like the obvious choice. But I think git's cli is akin to quantum mechanics, i.e. don't trust your intuition. :) Ideal is when a git push alone is enough, you can do git

Re: Proposed git migration plan

Hi Sandro, On Wed, 27 Aug 2014, Sandro Tosi wrote: It seems to me like very vocal Git fanatics, who refuse to touch any package which is not maintained in Git (-.-), are pushing and pushing to that VCS without any clear advantage. You might dismiss those people but you're speaking of true

Re: DebConf14 svn-git migration BOF notes

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014, Stuart Prescott wrote: I've done some personal investigation since the BOF, and am preparing some really simple migration scripts, so we can get a feel for what it will look like. My scripts so far (very very simple)

Re: Proposed git migration plan

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014, Sandro Tosi wrote: like true contributors are those using svn right now. and what about the majority of contributors now? we should change just because maybe, eventually, if we're lucky we'll attract more contributors? saying I won't contribute to your team if you don't

Re: git-dpm vs gbp-pq: new upstream and patch refresh (long)

On Thu, 04 Sep 2014, Barry Warsaw wrote: On Sep 04, 2014, at 04:36 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: Actually, nevermind. That's not the problem you were trying to solve, although you could remove the patch as described and then apply the updated patch at the end of the series. Yeah, though

Re: Recommendation: adopt git-dpm

On Thu, 04 Sep 2014, Barry Warsaw wrote: Even with those complaints, git-dpm feels like the better tool for team package management in git. The problems are minor and probably easily fixable. From my point of view, since you're anyway using features of git-buildpackage, it would be better to

Re: django 1.7 change for backport to wheezy

Hi, On Tue, 09 Sep 2014, Brian May wrote: Can I please get the following change in python-django git? Add the following to debian/control: X-Python-Version: = 2.7 This will make backports to stable a lot easier. Otherwise the package builds fine, but won't install in Python 2.6 is

Re: Help needed to test packages with Django 1.7

Hi Brian, thanks for those investigations! On Thu, 11 Sep 2014, Brian May wrote: Note that I have explicitly called python. This ensures Python 3 not used (not supported by South + the virtualenv is Python 2 only) and that we get the python from the virtualenv. I have tested this and it

Re: django 1.7 bugs

Hi, On Sat, 13 Sep 2014, Thomas Goirand wrote: I think we should all focus first on the Python Team modules, and see where that leads us. Also, to me, considering the amount of remaining bugs without a single reply, it's too early to upload Django 1.7 to Sid. Raphael, do you still plan to

Re: django 1.7 bugs

Hi, On Fri, 12 Sep 2014, Zygmunt Krynicki wrote: I wrote large parts of lava-server and both of the django- packages here but I'm not an active upstream anymore (I cannot commit to those repositories, only Linaro folks can) . If anyone wants my help though I'd gladly render assistance. I

Re: Help needed to test packages with Django 1.7

Hi, On Tue, 16 Sep 2014, Brian May wrote: On 11 September 2014 16:39, Brian May br...@microcomaustralia.com.au wrote: Ok, will look into this tomorrow. Just pushed a change. Unfortunately, had problems testing this because debian/rules clean removes Django.egg-info/* which is flagged

Re: Fwd: [Python-modules-commits] [python-mplexporter] 135/135: Merge pull request #30 from rainwoodman/patch-1

Hi, On Wed, 24 Sep 2014, Julian Taylor wrote: Nah. It's a great reason to teach the tool in question to be *way* more reasonable. Who needs a single email per commit? Esp. since the number of actual commits will go way up with increased git usage – feature branches are easy in git, and

Re: [Python-modules-commits] [python-mplexporter] 135/135: Merge pull request #30 from rainwoodman/patch-1

On Thu, 09 Oct 2014, Sandro Tosi wrote: so is there any chance you stop this commit storm madness anytime soon? another bunch of 300 commit messages arrive this night I fixed the default configuration in setup-repository to limit to 20 commits per push as a maximum. And I also limited the

Re: Fighting commit storm madness (was: [Python-modules-commits] [python-mplexporter] 135/135: Merge pull request #30 from rainwoodman/patch-1)

On Thu, 09 Oct 2014, W. Martin Borgert wrote: On 2014-10-09 10:02, Raphael Hertzog wrote: I fixed the default configuration in setup-repository to limit to 20 commits per push as a maximum. And I also limited the size of individual commit emails to 1000 lines. I wonder, whether some kind

Re: Git migration schedule

On Wed, 21 Oct 2015, Sandro Tosi wrote: > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Brian May wrote: > > Maybe we should fix #801666 first and then revisit this question? > > git-dpm hasnt seen a single line changed since more than a year >

Re: dh-python (pybuild + dh_py*) documentation

Hi Piotr, On Mon, 26 Oct 2015, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: > How can I improve it? Do you need more detailed description of options? > Do you need more examples? Or maybe I should hide most of options, the > "corner case" ones? I focus on making things work out of the box, if > possible, and make it

Django 1.8 in unstable in early November

Hello, I just filed 20 bugs on packages that FTBFS with Django 1.8. They have two weeks to be fixed before we upload Django 1.8 to unstable. https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?users=python-dja...@packages.debian.org;tag=django18 If you maintain a package in the Django ecosystem,

Re: Git migration schedule

On Tue, 20 Oct 2015, Brian May wrote: > Barry Warsaw writes: > > > Now, in practice, it doesn't matter if you ignore git-dpm and just use quilt > > *as long as the final state of the repo is compatible with git-dpm*. > > Meaning, > > in general, you can make whatever local

Re: Git migration schedule

On Sun, 11 Oct 2015, Brian May wrote: > What branches do I need to put the debian/README.source file in? There are > six debian/* branches, don't think it is a good idea to try and maintain a > consistent debian/README.source in all branches. > > Maybe debian/experimental would be sufficient? Or

Re: python-django

On Sun, 11 Oct 2015, Brian May wrote: > Just noticed how it named the upstream branches. > > * [new branch] upstream-debian/experimental -> upstream-debian/experimental > * [new branch] upstream-debian/jessie -> upstream-debian/jessie > * [new branch] upstream-debian/sid -> upstream-debian/sid >

Re: [DPMT] radical changes: automation, carrot and stick

On Wed, 07 Oct 2015, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: > I assume you all like other ideas, like no team in Maintainer, right? While I understand the desire to have one identified maintainer for each package, I don't agree with the rule. Changing maintainer means changing the flow of information and it is

Re: python-django

Hi, On Fri, 09 Oct 2015, Brian May wrote: > We can move the migrated version out of the way, restore the old version, > and update it to the required standards (e.g. git-dpm). Is everyone happy > with this approach? Yes, except for the naming of branches where I would prefer to keep the DEP-14

Re: Bug#812117: RM: simpletal -- RoQA; unmaintained; low popcon

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > loggerhead: loggerhead And that rdep is relatively important since AFAIK we use loggerhead at least on alioth to browse bzr repositories. Maybe it's best to invest a bit of time into updating it rather than dropping it just for the sake of its low

Re: django-pipeline / slimit

On Wed, 23 Mar 2016, Brian May wrote: > Looks like slimit doesn't support Python3 and hasn't had an upstream > release since 2013-03-26. > > Any suggestions where to go from here? > > Maybe hack pipeline to disable the failing test? I think pipeline can be > configured to use jsmin instead of

Re: django-pipeline / slimit

On Wed, 23 Mar 2016, Brian May wrote: > I: pybuild base:184: PYTHONPATH=. python3.5 /usr/bin/django-admin test > --settings=tests.settings ^ > File "/«PKGBUILDDIR»/pipeline/compressors/slimit.py", line 12, in > compress_js > from slimit import

Re: using git-dpm or plain git-buildpackage in PAPT and DPMT

On Wed, 10 Aug 2016, Nikolaus Rath wrote: > I don't believe that switching from git-dpm to git-buildpackage is going > to make things easier, it'll just be trading one set of problems for > another. I don't agree on this. I have been a happy git-buildpackage user for all my packages. The problem

Re: [Python-modules-team] Bug#849652: faker: FTBFS on 32-bit: ValueError: timestamp out of range for platform time_t

On Mon, 30 Jan 2017, Brian May wrote: > Help in fixing this RC bug would be appreciated. I have forwarded this > upstream, however need a quick fix for the Debian package (not sure but > suspect it might be too late for stretch). > > Unfortunately, not sure where to start. I don't understand this

Re: git-dpm breakage src:faker

On Sun, 29 Jan 2017, Brian May wrote: > 3. Update debian/source/options with "unapply-patches" (anything else?). You don't need that. dpkg-buildpackage unapplies them automatically after the build if it has applied them. If they were already applied before the build, then it leaves them

Re: DPMT Membership request

Hello Marcos, On Wed, 23 Nov 2016, Marcos Fouces wrote: > I am still waiting for an answer. I don't know how to proceed in this case. You should have subscribed to debian-python@lists.debian.org and you would have seen that you have to reply to

Re: Binary naming for Django Related Packages

Hi, On Wed, 30 Nov 2016, Scott Kitterman wrote: > Raphael, do you think that the upstream Django project might be willing to > make some kind of best practices for naming third party django packages? If > they did that, then that would give us a basis for Debian maintainers talking > to their

Re: Binary naming for Django Related Packages

On Mon, 28 Nov 2016, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: > [Barry Warsaw, 2016-11-28] > > Is there any risk of having confusing names because of a conflict between a > > 3rd party Django module and a Django subpackage? e.g. python3-django-foo > > vs. python3-django.foo. > > > > I'm sure it's a non-issue in

Re: Binary naming for Django Related Packages

On Mon, 28 Nov 2016, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > > Please let me know what you think. I'm open to suggestions on wording. > > > I'd like to get this done in the next week and do a python-defaults > > > upload with this and a few minor (non-policy) changes that are pending. +1 from me. I'm

Re: python-django_1.8.18-1~bpo8+1_amd64.changes REJECTED

On Thu, 01 Jun 2017, Ian Campbell wrote: > > https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/python-modules/packages/python-django.git/commit/?id=ded34be > > There's a typo in there: > > +run tests with “-W errro” when you detect that you are running against the > ^ Fixed, thanks.

Re: Move to salsa? Team structure preview ready

On Thu, 08 Feb 2018, W. Martin Borgert wrote: > No need to merge the subgroups ever. > With this structure, it is one team already. > > If there nobody objects, we have to: > - migrate the git archives (you volunteered, thanks!) - setup the webhook to close bugs - configure email on

Re: Move to salsa? Merge modules and apps team?

Hello, On Wed, 07 Feb 2018, W. Martin Borgert wrote: > how about moving the Python team(s) to salsa? Definitely! But we might want to learn from the perl team to structure the python-team: https://lists.debian.org/debian-perl/2018/01/msg00039.html We could then have everything python related

New upstream version of python-xlwt

Hi, ccing maintainers of reverse dependencies of python-xlwt. We switched to a new upstream version (0.7.5 -> 1.3.0) so you might want to check that your packages are still working with this new version (rows, python-pandas, On Thu, 26 Oct 2017, Thomas Goirand wrote: > I've found out that

Re: PAPT and DPMT membership request for moschlar-guest

Hi, On Mon, 26 Mar 2018, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: > [Moritz Schlarb, 2018-02-15] > > please also add my user "moschlar-guest" to the respective Groups on Salsa. > > looks like my thread is broken, I cannot find referenced emails. Do you > accept our policy? Which packages do you want to work on?

Please add me to PAPT

Hello, I'm part of the DPMT and I have already agreed to follow the policy. However I'm not part of PAPT and I would like to join this team too because at multiple times I have felt the need to update some packages in that team and I just skipped doing it because I did not have access to the git

Re: Dropping Python 2 support for web.py before buster

Hi, On Tue, 22 Jan 2019, Julien Danjou wrote: > I'm not actively maintaining rebuildd for years now. I'm not even sure > it has still any user. FWIW, the Kali buildd do still use rebuildd. > I wouldn't spend time on porting rebuildd nor I would let it block it > updating web.py. > Not sure

Re: updating mechanize - help concerning tests with pybuild

Hi, On Sun, 01 Sep 2019, Norbert Preining wrote: > Fine with me. If you could give me DPMT membership on salsa I can push > my current work there. I can't grant you the right to the whole group (I'm not an owner) but I created the repository and granted you the rights on this repository at

Re: updating mechanize - help concerning tests with pybuild

Hello, On Sat, 31 Aug 2019, Norbert Preining wrote: > I would be interested in adopting mechanize if the current maintainers > / uploaders are fine with it. Or we put it into the python modules team > and I do the stuff there. All is fine for me. I would like to see the package in the python

Re: updating mechanize - help concerning tests with pybuild

nks for leading this! Cheers, > On September 1, 2019 9:43:33 AM GMT+09:00, Matthias Klose > wrote: > >On 01.09.19 01:59, Norbert Preining wrote: > >> Hi Raphael, > >> > >> @Matthias, please read on. > >> > >> On Sat, 31 Aug 2019, Rapha

Re: Git, gbp blues

On Sun, 25 Aug 2019, Dmitry Shachnev wrote: > The correct procedure is running “gbp pq import” *before* importing a new > tarball. Then after importing you do “gbp pq rebase”. > > Sometimes I myself forget to run “gbp pq import”. In this case I do the > following: Instead you should use "gbp pq

Re: Streamlining the use of Salsa CI on team packages

Hi, On Sun, 15 Sep 2019, Louis-Philippe Véronneau wrote: > For step 1, I proposed we use the "Salsa Pipeline" [1], as I feel it is > the most mature solution, has more contributors and has more features > (including reprotest and piuparts). This option seems to have had the > most support so far.

Re: Merge Requests

On Fri, 06 Dec 2019, Louis-Philippe Véronneau wrote: > On 19-12-06 04 h 34, Jonathan Carter wrote: > > For other MRs, I noticed that many small changes in the packaging didn't > > have an associated changelog entry with it, so I had to dch to add a > > changelog entry. I think for small changes

Re: [Python-modules-team] Processing of paramiko_2.7.1-1_source.changes

On Mon, 11 May 2020, Sandro Tosi wrote: > when i push i always do > > $ git push --all ; git push --tags To push only branches which are shared on both sides and the associated tags I use this: $ git push origin : --follow-tags Which I alias as "git dpush" so I have this in ~/.gitconfig:

Re: Move python-libusb1 from NEW/Unstable

Hello Mattia, On Sun, 24 May 2020, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 05:03:50PM -0700, debianb...@felinefamily.org wrote: > > The package maintainer, Arnoud Fountaine uploaded the fix to the last > > bug a week or so ago but it’s been stuck in the NEW queue ever since. > > Is there

Re: Newcomers project: DPMT/PAPT pristine-tar verification

Hi, On Fri, 10 Jul 2020, Sandro Tosi wrote: > The checks i have in mind for now, are: > > * pristine-tar branch must exist, if not -> it's a bug > * pristine-tar + upstream branch must produce the same tarball as > downloaded from the archive, if not -> it's a bug > * bonus point: fix the repo

Re: Newcomers project: DPMT/PAPT pristine-tar verification

[ Putting Jelmer in copy ] On Sun, 19 Jul 2020, Sandro Tosi wrote: > On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 11:04 AM Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > On Fri, 10 Jul 2020, Sandro Tosi wrote: > > > The checks i have in mind for now, are: > > > > > > * pristine-tar bra

Re: Transfer cherrytree from DPT to Debian group

Hello Andrius, On Fri, 16 Oct 2020, Andrius Merkys wrote: > Recently cherrytree [1] has been rewritten from Python to C++, thus it > no longer belongs in DPT. Could someone with adequate permissions > transfer it from DPT to generic Debian group on salsa.d.o? > Alternatively, one could grant me

Bug#988658: RFP: python3-pyupgrade -- Automatically upgrade syntax for newer versions of the Python language

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-python@lists.debian.org * Package name: python3-pyupgrade Version : 2.16.0 Upstream Author : Anthony Sottile * URL : https://github.com/asottile/pyupgrade * License : BSD Programming Lang: Python

Re: Python package situation

Hi, On Wed, 17 Feb 2021, 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 update them. But

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

On Fri, 12 Feb 2021, Thomas Goirand wrote: > What I read from Elana, is that *upstream* think we have a problem. But > do we really have one? Or are we just being influenced by upstream who > is trying to impose a view we don't necessary share? Or is it you that is trying to impose your view on

Looking for Python developers that want to improve Debian

Hey people, I wanted to share the Freexian announce that I just published in my blog: https://raphaelhertzog.com/2022/03/29/join-freexian-to-help-improve-debian/ We are a small team of Debian developers/contributors. We are bound by our mission statement: > Freexian's mission is to help Debian

<    1   2