Re: Does “${python3:Depends}” reliably generate correct dependencies?

On October 25, 2015 1:17:17 AM EDT, Ben Finney wrote: >Howdy all, > >If we set “Depends: ${python3:Depends}” in the binary package, and use >‘dh_python3’, is that all that is needed to ensure the correct >dependencies on Python 3 versions? > >Recently I received

Re: Python Policy

On October 19, 2015 1:31:37 PM EDT, Barry Warsaw wrote: >So we currently have several places where we have team policy >described. > >* The Debian wiki > https://wiki.debian.org/Python and subpages > >* Another wiki page: > https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/PythonModulesTeam >

Status Update For Bug#798999: transition: python3.5 supported

Modulo waiting for mips to catch up, the transition to add python3.5 as a supported python3 version is done, with the following exceptions [1]: apparmor: #799449 FTBFS: test suite segfaults on mips and mipsel pygpgme: #797776 FTBFS: Ran 55 tests in 54.866s: FAILED (failures=2, errors=2) woo:

Re: Request to join

On Monday, October 12, 2015 03:09:16 PM Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Oct 12, 2015, at 11:57 AM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: > >transition is not over, our policy still mentions SVN only... > > Unless I'm missing it, not in python-policy.sgml (Debian Python Policy) > though. That's Python policy for all

Re: warnings importing new upstream source

On October 12, 2015 1:27:41 AM EDT, Brian May wrote: >As far as I know this actually did work despite the complaining about >no >parent commit... What does that mean? > >git-dpm import-new-upstream --ptc --rebase-patched >../django-model-utils_2.3.1.orig.tar.gz

Re: Status Update For Bug#798999: transition: python3.5 supported

On Monday, October 12, 2015 09:25:43 PM Rene Engelhard wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:24:02AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > Additionally, looking ahead to the next transition that makes python3.5 > > the > > default python3, it would be good to look at

Re: git.debian.org broken link

On Saturday, October 10, 2015 05:08:05 AM Brian May wrote: > When I fixed a bug in git: > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=801208 > > It put a link to a diff in the bug report: > > http://git.debian.org/?p=python-modules/packages/django-ajax-selects.git;a=c >

Re: Removing some python3-* packages

On July 9, 2015 7:39:15 AM EDT, Ian Cordasco graffatcolmin...@gmail.com wrote: On Jul 9, 2015 5:25 AM, Robert Collins robe...@robertcollins.net wrote: On 3 July 2015 at 08:29, Scott Kitterman deb...@kitterman.com wrote: I think dropping these duplicates is the only thing that makes sense

Re: trying to solve the pytango FTBFS with gcc5

On Sunday, September 06, 2015 08:23:37 AM PICCA Frederic-Emmanuel wrote: > Hello, guyes, > > I am working on this bug report[1], and I would like your opinion. > this package depends on the tango library which was rebuilt with gcc5 and > updated for the libstdc++6 transition. > > Now as you can

Python 3.5 as a supported python3 version

It seems very likely that we'll want to release Stretch with python3.5 as the default and only python3 version. To do that, we'll need three transitions for python3 extensions (arch all python3 modules don't (with one exception) need to be touched for these transitions): 1. Add python3.5 as

Re: Bug#798999: transition: python3.5 supported

On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 10:23:19 PM Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: > > I would appreciate it if you would go ahead and publish it and then with > > your permission, I'll coordinate binNMUs as I've done in the past for > > python transitions. > > Does

Re: Bug#798999: transition: python3.5 supported

On Saturday, September 26, 2015 01:24:46 PM Julien Cristau wrote: > On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 22:19:20 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > I have the python3-defaults upload to enable python3.5 as a supported > > python3 version prepared and ready to upload when I get an ack from the &

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On September 29, 2015 7:55:36 AM EDT, Julien Cristau wrote: >On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 12:26:44 +0100, Sandro Tosi wrote: > >> Once again, the python policy about Maintainer/Uploaders has been >ignored >> >>

Re: lintian and team uploads

On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 10:31:23 PM Julien Puydt wrote: > Le mardi 29 sept. 2015 à 15:51:44 (-0400), Barry Warsaw a écrit : > > On Sep 29, 2015, at 09:46 PM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: > > >(and remember to remove DPMT from debian/control if it's not in SVN ;P) > > > > Given that the final git

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On September 30, 2015 6:47:57 AM EDT, Sandro Tosi <mo...@debian.org> wrote: >On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Scott Kitterman ><deb...@kitterman.com> wrote: >> I'd much prefer he was spending time reviewing jtaylor's patch to fix >the python-numpy FTBFS on powerpc

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On September 30, 2015 6:27:02 AM EDT, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: >On 30 September 2015 at 10:26, Thomas Kluyver >wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 30, 2015, at 01:53 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote: >>> This has driven >>> some contributors away in the past, thinking we

Re: I've been removed from the Python team

On September 30, 2015 6:43:09 PM EDT, "Pierre-Elliott Bécue" wrote: >Le 1 octobre 2015 00:25:55 GMT+02:00, Ian Cordasco > a écrit : >>On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 5:04 PM, Pierre-Elliott Bécue > >>wrote: >>> On mer. 30 sept. 2015 à

Re: I've been removed from the Python team

On Thursday, October 01, 2015 02:11:29 PM Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Oct 01, 2015, at 07:47 PM, Vincent Bernat wrote: > >I am a bit worried that the team is handled behind closed walls. > > I have no particular interest in either grabbing power nor in taking power > away from anybody, but I think

Re: Bug#798999: transition: python3.5 supported

On September 27, 2015 10:11:04 AM EDT, Yaroslav Halchenko <deb...@onerussian.com> wrote: > >On Sat, 26 Sep 2015, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> > On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 22:19:20 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> > > I have the python3-defaults upload to

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On October 5, 2015 8:42:40 PM EDT, Brian May <br...@microcomaustralia.com.au> wrote: >On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 at 09:33 Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com> >wrote: > >> Except in this case you not only didn't but then got defensive when >called >> on it. If yo

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On Monday, October 05, 2015 05:11:26 PM Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Oct 05, 2015, at 02:51 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote: > >In other distributions (Red Hat and Ubuntu), everyone is aware of this > >kind of issue before uploading, and this kinds of things don't happen. > > Ubuntu at least does have a

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On October 5, 2015 7:02:58 PM EDT, Thomas Goirand <z...@debian.org> wrote: >On 10/06/2015 12:33 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> Technically right, but socially wrong is wrong. > >I got that point, yes. > >> Reading that and what you >> wrote above, does tha

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On Monday, October 05, 2015 11:45:57 PM Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 10/05/2015 04:57 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: ... > >> It is also to be noted that mock is maintained by upstream OpenStack > >> people (ie: Robert Collins), and therefore, should be released in Debian > >

Re: Bug#798999: transition: python3.5 supported

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 17:43:53 -0400 Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 10:23:19 PM Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: > > > I would appreciate it if you would go ahead and publish it and then with > > > your permission, I'll coor

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On Tuesday, October 06, 2015 09:24:42 AM Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 10/06/2015 02:12 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > As I said up thread, I think a break from the team will be helpful for you > > to re-engage productively. > I wrote it to you privately. You can't just te

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

On Sunday, October 04, 2015 11:54:18 PM Stefano Rivera wrote: > This thread has had me thinking a bit. > > Hi Scott (2015.10.02_20:34:16_+0200) > > > Personally, I like the current approach where someone can either commit to > > either strong team maintainership (DPMT in maintainer) or weak team

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On Monday, October 05, 2015 02:51:26 PM Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 10/05/2015 09:37 AM, Michael Fladischer wrote: > > On 2015-09-30 10:53, Thomas Goirand wrote: > >> * The maintainer of mock uploaded version 1.3 to Sid, which created RC > >> bugs (FTBFS) on maybe more than 20 packages currently in

Re: Git migration schedule

On Monday, October 05, 2015 11:49:01 AM Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Oct 04, 2015, at 08:03 PM, Sandro Tosi wrote: > >am I the only one thinking it's quite a huge number to be handled by > >hand? and whose hands will be the ones converting these packages? > >yours or Barry's dont seem enough and

Re: OT: To CC or not to CC? (was: Sorry for posting the same message twice)

On December 4, 2015 5:54:50 PM EST, Christoph Groth wrote: >Piotr Ożarowski wrote: > >> your message went through, I simply decide to ignore you for a while >> because you CCed me on a mailing list that I subscribe :P > >But how can I know that you, or someone else,

Re: conflicting packages python-pysocks and python-socksipy

On January 4, 2016 2:18:22 PM EST, "W. Martin Borgert" wrote: >Hi, > >TLDR: Both are the same, providing the "socks" module. We should >remove one of them. Maybe renaming the other to python-socks. > >Longer story: Recently, I upgraded the outdated python-socksipy >package.

Switching Default Python3 To Python3.5

I went through the bad/unknown packages in the python3.5 transition tracker [1] and the remainder seems reasonable for doing the transition. Many of them only build support for the default python3 and so they will be bad until after they are rebuilt following the switch. I filed bugs with

Re: Enabling Python bindings for jellyfish

(so that configure wouldn't fail) mean perl bindings don't get built either. I didn't check if that was working before. Scott K>From 72a9b63d0d8bf4d64614966aed79025c7c7d0fdf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Scott Kitterman <sc...@kitterman.com> Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 10:45:11 -0500 Subject

Re: Enabling Python bindings for jellyfish

On Tuesday, December 29, 2015 11:52:07 AM Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Tuesday, December 29, 2015 12:30:14 AM Andreas Tille wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I realised that for jellyfish[1] Python bindings can be activated. I > > tried to do so and configuring and build

Re: Enabling Python bindings for jellyfish

can we resolve the name collision early? > > https://pypi.python.org/pypi/jellyfish > > Paul > > On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com> > > wrote: > > On Tuesday, December 29, 2015 11:52:07 AM Scott Kitterman wrote: > > >

Re: Request to join DPMT

On Wednesday, January 06, 2016 04:11:18 PM Ole Streicher wrote: > Hello all, > > I would like to join the DPMT. I already have packages some Python > packages (python-astropy and many of its affiliated packages, > python-pywcs, python-astroml) under the hood of the Debian-Astro team. > In future

Re: conflicting packages python-pysocks and python-socksipy

On Monday, January 04, 2016 07:58:26 PM Scott Kitterman wrote: > On January 4, 2016 2:18:22 PM EST, "W. Martin Borgert" <deba...@debian.org> wrote: > >Hi, > > > >TLDR: Both are the same, providing the "socks" module. We should > >remove

Re: Enabling Python bindings for jellyfish

On Thursday, December 31, 2015 06:32:43 PM Diego M. Rodriguez wrote: > On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 02:07:05PM -0500, Paul Tagliamonte wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 1:24 PM, Diego M. Rodriguez > > <diego.pl...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 29, 2015

Re: Request to join PAPT

On Saturday, December 19, 2015 03:24:47 PM Neil Muller wrote: > I sent a request to join the PAPT via alioth [1] some weeks ago, but > there doesn't appear to have been any response to that. > > I intend to adopt irker [2], and would like to see it maintained as > part of the PAPT. > > My alioth

Re: Joining DPMT / PAPT

On Tuesday, December 08, 2015 04:54:16 PM Pierre Equoy wrote: > Hello! > > I've been working on packaging and maintaining Checkbox [1] packages. > > I would like to join the Debian Python Modules Team and the Python > Applications Packaging Team in order to maintain the Checkbox-related >

Re: Request to join

On Sunday, December 13, 2015 05:02:47 PM Christopher Baines wrote: > I would like to join the python modules team. I am currently working on > packaging sklearn-pandas, which I would like to maintain as part of the > team. I am also interested in getting involved in general maintenance of > team

Re: Request to join the DPMT

On Friday, December 18, 2015 06:25:14 PM Diego M. Rodriguez wrote: > Dear Debian Python Modules Team, > > I would like to join the team with the initial goal of maintaining the > python-jellyfish package, which has currently ITP [1] and RFS [2] status, > under the umbrella and guidance of the

Re: Joining the team

On Thursday, December 31, 2015 08:31:31 AM Ian Cordasco wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I would like to join the debian-python team. I have read the policy at > > https://python-modules.alioth.debian.org/python-modules-policy.html > > and accept it. > > My Alioth account is sigmavirus24-guest. >

Re: Enabling Python bindings for jellyfish

2015 12:27:37 PM Paul Tagliamonte wrote: > > > Just FYI - there's a Python module called Jellyfish about to be > > > uploaded; > > > can we resolve the name collision early? > > > > > > https://pypi.python.org/pypi/jellyfish > > > > > >

Bug#810136: transition: python3-defaults (python3.5 as default python3)

Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: transition This is the tracking bug for the transition to make python3.5 the default python3. The transition tracker is already in place [1]. The archive is generally ready for this transition,

Re: Which bug report is tracking the “python3 is Python 3.5” transition? (was: Packaging Python that requires 3.5)

On November 28, 2015 7:21:57 PM EST, Brian May wrote: >Ben Finney writes: > >> API/ABI transitions (such as switching default Python 3 to be PYthon >> 3.5) are managed by the release team, with a workflow described at >>

Re: transition: python3-defaults (python3.5 as default python3) - status update

On Wednesday, January 06, 2016 03:39:15 PM you wrote: ... > 1. pygpgme is FTBFS due to test failures (#797776). There has been no > response from the maintainers and I have been unable to determine the > source of the failures. I do not believe it is python3 version related (the > package

Re: python-texttable -- status and interest in becoming the maintainer

On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 12:55:15 AM Sergio Durigan Junior wrote: > Hello, > > I'm a user of the python-texttable package on Debian, and I noticed that > it seems abandoned. The first and only upload happened in 2013, and > even though there is a new upstream version available the package did >

Re: python-texttable -- status and interest in becoming the maintainer

On Thursday, June 16, 2016 11:35:02 PM Sergio Durigan Junior wrote: > On Tuesday, June 14 2016, I wrote: > >> If you are interested in keeping the package up to date, please add > >> yourself to Uploaders and then get to work. Please make sure you use > >> git-dpm on any DPMT repositories. > > >

Transition to python3.5 as default python3 in progress

The RT ack'ed the transition bug and I just uploaded python3-defaults with python3.5 set as the default version, so we've started. Scott K

Re: Python Policy: Things to consider for Stretch

On January 26, 2016 10:32:57 PM EST, Ben Finney wrote: >Dmitry Shachnev writes: > >> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 04:46:19PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote: >> > I'm planning to provide changes in two bundles: >> > >> > * Go through the whole document and

Re: Python Policy: Things to consider for Stretch

On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 04:46:19 PM Ben Finney wrote: ... > Once these non-semantic changes are accepted I will begin work on the > second stage of semantic changes. ... OK. Those are all accepted. Barry Warsaw had done some changes in the -whl section so I made an attempt at merging

Re: Amend Debian Python Proposal to Include More Python Metadata?

On Thursday, January 21, 2016 10:00:53 AM Donald Stufft wrote: > > On Jan 21, 2016, at 9:32 AM, Paul Tagliamonte wrote: > > > > Hey Donald! > > > > As far as using pip to do stuff system-wide, I wrote thoughts on > > http://notes.pault.ag/debian-python

Python Policy: Things to consider for Stretch

I've taken a run through the current Python Policy to see where I think it needs to be updated for Stretch. The updates largely fall into four categories: 1. Update old examples 2. Clean up old policy test that no longer applies 3. Simplify things due to there only being one python version

Re: Amend Debian Python Proposal to Include More Python Metadata?

On Friday, January 22, 2016 01:32:45 PM Fred Drake wrote: > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com> wrote: > > Currently --record includes the .pyc files which is both unneeded and bad. > > Before this gets added either in setuptools

Re: Amend Debian Python Proposal to Include More Python Metadata?

On Friday, January 22, 2016 01:47:28 PM Fred Drake wrote: > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 1:41 PM, Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com> wrote: > > For Debian it's bad because we don't ship the .pyc files in the package > > they are managed locally by the installed python s

Re: Amend Debian Python Proposal to Include More Python Metadata?

On Friday, January 22, 2016 05:50:13 PM Donald Stufft wrote: ... > We already have an option like this, the —root option which will just append > a different prefix to all of the installation paths. So essentially instead > of invoking ``python setup.py install —root /tmp/something/`` which is

Re: Amend Debian Python Proposal to Include More Python Metadata?

On January 22, 2016 6:27:08 PM EST, Donald Stufft <don...@stufft.io> wrote: > >> On Jan 22, 2016, at 6:04 PM, Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com> >wrote: >> >> On Friday, January 22, 2016 05:50:13 PM Donald Stufft wrote: >> ... >>> We alrea

Re: Python Policy: Things to consider for Stretch

On Friday, January 22, 2016 05:55:19 PM Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Jan 21, 2016, at 10:47 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > >I've taken a run through the current Python Policy to see where I think it > >needs to be updated for Stretch. > > Thanks Scott for the badly needed updat

Re: Amend Debian Python Proposal to Include More Python Metadata?

On Saturday, January 23, 2016 03:13:48 AM Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Friday, January 22, 2016 10:54:54 AM Donald Stufft wrote: > > > On Jan 22, 2016, at 10:36 AM, Piotr Ożarowski <pi...@debian.org> wrote: > > > > > > to be honest, I still don't know what you'r

Re: Amend Debian Python Proposal to Include More Python Metadata?

On Friday, January 22, 2016 10:54:54 AM Donald Stufft wrote: > > On Jan 22, 2016, at 10:36 AM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: > > > > to be honest, I still don't know what you're asking for. What do you > > want us to do? Patch 2.7's distutils? > > Essentially, ensure that setuptools

Re: Python Policy: Things to consider for Stretch

On Saturday, January 23, 2016 08:50:49 PM Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Jan 23, 2016, at 03:38 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > >Personally I seriously dislike the trend to call Python Python 2 (and I > >still thing approving a pep to invent /usr/bin/python2 because Arch went > >insan

Re: Python Policy: Things to consider for Stretch

On Sunday, January 24, 2016 04:46:09 PM Ben Finney wrote: > Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com> writes: > > I've taken a run through the current Python Policy to see where I > > think it needs to be updated for Stretch. The updates largely fall > > into four categor

Re: Python Policy: Things to consider for Stretch

On Sunday, January 24, 2016 04:58:26 PM Ben Finney wrote: > Ben Finney writes: > > Where is the Git (I assume?) repository you're using for VCS of this > > policy document? > > Found it; the source document is ‘python-policy.sgml’ in the source VCS > for ‘python3’.

Re: Python Policy: Things to consider for Stretch

On Sunday, January 24, 2016 04:33:55 PM Ben Finney wrote: > Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com> writes: > > I don't particularly agree, but if that's correct, then there's a > > large amount of change needed throughout the policy. These certainly > > aren't th

Re: Python Policy: Things to consider for Stretch

On January 24, 2016 11:59:14 PM EST, Ben Finney <ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au> wrote: >Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com> writes: > >> On Sunday, January 24, 2016 04:58:26 PM Ben Finney wrote: >> > Found it; the source document is ‘python-policy.sgml’ in

Re: Amend Debian Python Proposal to Include More Python Metadata?

On Friday, January 22, 2016 10:54:54 AM Donald Stufft wrote: > > On Jan 22, 2016, at 10:36 AM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: > > > > to be honest, I still don't know what you're asking for. What do you > > want us to do? Patch 2.7's distutils? > > Essentially, ensure that setuptools

Re: Amend Debian Python Proposal to Include More Python Metadata?

On Friday, January 22, 2016 12:11:27 PM Donald Stufft wrote: ... > 3) It slipped my mind that you have to pass an additional flag to setuptools > right now to get the full file list (pip passes that flag unconditionally) > however I'm going to poke setuptools to see about getting them to add the >

Re: Cythonized files & Debian Policy

On April 7, 2016 5:29:14 PM EDT, "Víctor Cuadrado Juan" wrote: >I have come across an upstream that ships both the cythonized .c file >and the .py source, on my ITP python-neovim-gui [1]. > >On #python @freenode I have been said that shipping both files is >standard practice,

Re: Packaging Grip

On April 6, 2016 10:37:24 PM EDT, Tiago Ilieve wrote: >Hi Dmitry, > >On 6 April 2016 at 17:21, Dmitry Shachnev wrote: >> 1. Public (/usr/lib/python*/dist-packages) vs private (/usr/share/) >location >> depends on whether the module is intended to be

Re: Handling python modules collision

On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 04:55:36 PM Frederic Bonnard wrote: > Hi, > I'd like your advises concerning the following situation : I'm packaging > this python library : > https://github.com/miguelgrinberg/python-socketio > > and I see that debian already provides a library with the same name : >

Re: static analysis and other tools for checking Python code

On Wednesday, March 02, 2016 11:22:52 AM Paul Wise wrote: > Hi all, > > Some of you may have noticed I'm working on a tool called > check-all-the-things that does what it says on the tin. > > https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/collab-maint/check-all-the-things.git >

Re: BTS bot in #debian-python IRC channel

On August 14, 2016 12:51:18 PM MDT, "Piotr Ożarowski" wrote: >[Ben Finney, 2016-08-14] >> Would it be a good idea to first have it running in an analogous >> channel, ‘#debian-python-changes’? > >+1 (I'd move VCS commits messages there too) +1 for both. Scott K

Re: Help for Python mock test suite needed (Was: Any help with problem of srst2 new versions tests suite failing to call bowtie2)

On Saturday, August 13, 2016 08:40:34 AM Andreas Tille wrote: > Hi, > > I've got no help on the Debian Med packaging list. Is there any hint > how I could track down a test Python suite issue what exact command > was called and failed? > > Thanks for any hint > > Andreas. > > On Tue,

Re: BTS bot in #debian-python IRC channel

On Saturday, August 13, 2016 10:48:35 PM Ondrej Novy wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to add BTS bot to IRC channel #debian-python with same > notifications (uploads, bug reports) as in #debian-devel-changes filtered > to maintainer/uploaders: > Debian Python Modules Team

Re: BTS bot in #debian-python IRC channel

On Saturday, August 13, 2016 11:50:50 PM Ondrej Novy wrote: > Hi, > > 2016-08-13 23:39 GMT+02:00 Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com>: > > I don't think there's anything you've listed that we don't already get via > > email. Personally, I don't think I need it

Re: ITP: python-prompt-toolkit -- Library for building powerful interactive command lines in Python

This is already packaged. https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/prompt-toolkit Scott K On July 21, 2016 2:30:36 AM EDT, Julien Puydt wrote: >Package: wnpp >Severity: wishlist > >* Package name : python-prompt-toolkit > Version : 1.0.3 > Upstream author :

Re: Bug#829630: O: pythonqt

On Monday, July 04, 2016 10:08:47 PM Andreas Tille wrote: > Package: wnpp > Severity: normal > > Hi, > > the package pythonqt was once a dependency of a Debian Med package but > this was removed. Now pythonqt has no rdepends any more and is hard to > maintain since it needs Qt4. May be its the

Re: [Python-modules-team] RM of shiboken & pyside ?

On Tuesday, July 05, 2016 06:00:25 PM Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: > Hi there, > > Now that we have PyOtherSide in Debian, and that both shiboken and > PySide are somewhat broken in sid & stretch; what about just removing > them from Debian ? > > I'm not a PySide user myself, and it's abandonned

Re: Moving off of git-dpm (Re: git-dpm breakage src:faker)

On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 02:23:29 PM Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Jan 29, 2017, at 09:39 AM, Brian May wrote: > >I would think "gbp pq" is the most popular. > > I've used it on some of my non-team packages and while it takes a little > getting used to for the standard git-dpm workflow, it's been

Re: Moving off of git-dpm (Re: git-dpm breakage src:faker)

On Sunday, February 05, 2017 03:59:37 PM Brian May wrote: > Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com> writes: > > We should probably be thinking in terms of post-release for this change. > > During the pre-release freeze, the release team doesn't typically allow > > change

Re: Binary naming for Django Related Packages

On Wednesday, January 18, 2017 10:04:24 AM IOhannes m zmölnig wrote: > On 2017-01-18 07:46, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > +··named·django_packagename·upstream.··These·are·then·packaged·as > > +··python3-django-package·and > > please use "package" vs &q

Re: git-dpm breakage src:faker

On Sunday, January 29, 2017 09:39:10 AM Brian May wrote: > Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com> writes: > > On Sunday, January 29, 2017 08:54:57 AM Brian May wrote: > >> Can we switch away from git-dpm yet? Sure this is most likely user > >> error, however

Re: git-dpm breakage src:faker

On Sunday, January 29, 2017 08:54:57 AM Brian May wrote: > Can we switch away from git-dpm yet? Sure this is most likely user > error, however I want to try to solve an RC bug, not fix broken git-dpm > first. Much like the switch from svn to git, I think we need an agreed new workflow and tools

Re: git-dpm breakage src:faker

On January 29, 2017 2:17:16 AM EST, Arto Jantunen <vi...@debian.org> wrote: >Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com> writes: > >> On Sunday, January 29, 2017 09:39:10 AM Brian May wrote: >>> Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com> writes: >>> >

Re: Moving off of git-dpm (Re: git-dpm breakage src:faker)

On February 11, 2017 4:05:46 PM EST, Nikolaus Rath <nikol...@rath.org> wrote: >On Feb 10 2017, Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com> wrote: >> On February 9, 2017 8:29:32 PM PST, Nikolaus Rath <nikol...@rath.org> >wrote: >>>On Feb 10 2017, Scott

Re: Moving off of git-dpm (Re: git-dpm breakage src:faker)

On February 9, 2017 8:29:32 PM PST, Nikolaus Rath <nikol...@rath.org> wrote: >On Feb 10 2017, Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com> wrote: >>>No. You are confusing dgit with one particular way to use it. You can >>>use dgit with the maint-merge workflow men

Re: Moving off of git-dpm (Re: git-dpm breakage src:faker)

On February 9, 2017 10:52:04 AM PST, Nikolaus Rath wrote: >On Feb 07 2017, Barry Warsaw wrote: >> On Feb 07, 2017, at 10:47 AM, Ghislain Vaillant wrote: >> >>>I know the discussion is leaning towards replacing usage of git-dpm >>>with gbp-pq. I have nothing

Re: Moving off of git-dpm

On Thursday, February 16, 2017 12:42:59 PM Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: > On 16 February 2017 at 11:31, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: > > Are you guys seriously considering dgit to replace anything other than > > dput in DPMT? I'd rather go back to svn-buildpackage than use something > >

Re: Binary naming for Django Related Packages

On Wednesday, December 07, 2016 11:43:29 AM Raphael Hertzog wrote: > 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 packa

Re: Joining DPMT: calculus

On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 08:48:44 PM Jerome BENOIT wrote: > Dear DPMT, > > I [0] would like to join the team to help to maintain Python modules that > are dependencies of Sage[Math] [1]. For the very moment, I am finalizing > the packaging of the Cython package cysignals [2], and I eager

Re: can we disable the bounce kicker? Re: confirm

On Friday, September 23, 2016 04:15:23 PM Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 09/10/2016 05:34 PM, Santiago Vila wrote: > > The "[Python-modules-team]" thing in the subject is probably enough to > > break the DKIM signature. > > I don't believe DKIM signature is done on the header+body. If I'm not >

Re: /usr/bin/python2 shebangs

On Monday, November 07, 2016 10:08:25 AM Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Nov 07, 2016, at 11:44 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote: > >So, I don't agree with you, and believe that gradually using > >#!/usr/bin/python2 is a good approach to the transition. IMO, that's > >what we should start doing as much as

Re: Salvaging pylibtiff to Debian Python team or removing it from Debian?

On Saturday, October 22, 2016 08:30:50 AM Andreas Tille wrote: > ¡Hola Maxi! > > On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 07:44:37AM +0200, Maximiliano Curia wrote: > > El 2016-10-21 a las 09:36 +0200, Andreas Tille escribió: > > >the former maintainer of pylibtiff inside Debian Med team Mathieu > > >Malaterre

Re: DPMT membership request

Done. I've left the -guest account in the team in case you need it for transitional purposes. Scott K On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 10:16:35 AM Christos Trochalakis wrote: > Hello, > > I am now using a new alioth username (ctrochalakis), > is it possible to add it to the group? > > Thank

Re: Binary naming for Django Related Packages

On Monday, November 28, 2016 05:50:24 PM Piotr Ożarowski wrote: > [Scott Kitterman, 2016-11-28] > > > 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 > > dif

Re: policy question: tag format for patch-less packages

On November 16, 2016 2:33:47 PM CST, "IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU)" wrote: >On 11/16/2016 06:07 AM, chrysn wrote: >> Should git-dpm be used even though no patches are present? > >how do you make sure that you will never need patches? (unless this is >a >native package)

Re: /usr/bin/python2 shebangs

On November 1, 2016 10:28:01 AM EDT, Barry Warsaw wrote: >Over in #834193, a user is asking for a /usr/bin/pip2 to mirror >/usr/bin/pip >because some uses cases apparently prefer pip2 over pip. That seems >like a >reasonable request on the face of it, and easy to support. >

Re: Packaging new version of ZODB (Zope Object Database)

On November 2, 2016 6:51:56 PM EDT, Barry Warsaw wrote: >On Nov 02, 2016, at 10:46 AM, Arnaud Fontaine wrote: > >>> I write to debian-python, because some of the involved packages >are >>> not specific to Zope. Actually, I even think that ZODB itself is >not >>> specific

Re: Packaging new version of ZODB (Zope Object Database)

On Friday, November 04, 2016 10:47:32 AM Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Nov 03, 2016, at 08:36 PM, Julien Muchembled wrote: > >I'm used to gbp. I don't know git-dpm (or I forgot after seeing I would not > >like?) > > git-dpm is usually pretty easy, but it's really only used in a few cases, > such as

Re: /usr/bin/python2 shebangs

On Tuesday, November 01, 2016 05:14:21 PM Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Nov 01, 2016, at 11:34 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > >I don't think /usr/bin/python should ever point to a python3 version. It > >should be dropped when python2.7 is removed. I think the existence of >

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >