On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 20:37 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
Donovan Baarda writes:
[...]
In the mean time, another alternative is to point your apt/sources.list
at an Ubuntu archive and see if you can upgrade python from there...
ugh, I would not try that ... you cannot differentiate between
upgrade python from there...
--
Donovan Baarda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://minkirri.apana.org.au/~abo/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
, provided it behaves as a non-deb should, it
is OK.
However, when I want production ready software, I look for debs. If it
ain't deb'ed, it's almost certainly not ready for production. If you
want your software taken seriously, you want it well deb'ed :-)
--
Donovan Baarda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http
On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 08:57 -0500, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
At 10:29 AM 11/25/2005 +, Donovan Baarda wrote:
On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 01:33 -0500, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
[...]
In the case where the user is *not* using easy_install, then all
dependencies will be met by system packages
probably be ignored.
Disclaimer: This should not be interpreted as an argument for or against
egg's. This thread is the first time I've even heard of them.
--
Donovan Baarda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://minkirri.apana.org.au/~abo/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
. How will these *.py files be re-compiled
when python (2.3) is upgraded to python (2.4)?
--
Donovan Baarda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
matches the
dependencies. python-epydoc should also directly depend on python if it
is to ever benefit from python triggering reconfigures of dependant
packages on install.
--
Donovan Baarda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble
...
--
Donovan Baarda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 20:23, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le lundi 10 octobre 2005 à 17:01 +0100, Donovan Baarda a écrit :
In 2.2.2, I would remove the only from only supports python versions
different from the currrent default one... You can use this for
packages that support the current
On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 20:29, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le lundi 10 octobre 2005 à 17:14 +0100, Donovan Baarda a écrit :
The best person to decide what packages need to support which old
versions of python are the package maintainers. They know this based on
the requests and bug reports from
providing legacy support anyway after a period of
time. I have a feeling Zope and Mailman dependencies will end up
defining the extent of legacy support.
--
Donovan Baarda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
-central would still be useful for pure-python modules that
support multiple pythonX.Y versions.
--
Donovan Baarda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
using /usr/lib/python/site-packages instead of
/usr/lib/site-python.
The only reason this is not yet supported is no-one has yet made it
work. The closest thing is the work done on python-central...
--
Donovan Baarda
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe
. However, I think supporting multiple versions is very
desirable, and think this is probably the best way to handle it for
extension modules.
--
Donovan Baarda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
, it usually
means there is no loop, and nothing is getting done at all :-)
See http://minkirri.apana.org.au/Wiki/OrganisationTips
It also shows how important it is for people to feel informed... even if
there is nothing to inform them about.
--
Donovan Baarda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
.
If these are removed from Debian, then we will need an unofficial
repository where they can be put for developers who want/need them...
and personaly I hate unofficial repositories.
--
Donovan Baarda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
. There are some problems (mainly
.pyc's get recompiled to different versions of python every time root
uses them with a different version), but the side-effects are minimal.
--
Donovan Baardahttp://minkirri.apana.org.au/~abo/
...
something I'd almost forgotten about.
Donovan Baardahttp://minkirri.apana.org.au/~abo/
On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 21:27, Fabio Tranchitella wrote:
Il mer, 2004-06-16 alle 04:03, Donovan Baarda ha scritto:
[...]
Policy? What I missed? I tried to find a Debian Python policy, but I
didn't have enough luck. It is not listed on
http://www.debian.org/devel/ like the perl policy or the java
packages is; if
no-one needed them for python2.2 before, why would they need them now?
Anything that needs it now will be new, and hence should be using the
latest default python. OTOH, if you know people need it and you are
prepared to make it, then sure, go for it :-)
--
Donovan Baarda [EMAIL
to 2.3 was pretty trivial... anyone remember 1.6 to 2.0?
Assuming future transitions will be trivial would be unwise.
--
Donovan Baarda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://minkirri.apana.org.au/~abo/
-zwiki...). Perhaps
a dependency on zopeZ alone without specifying a particular pythonX.Y
would fix this?
--
Donovan Baarda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://minkirri.apana.org.au/~abo/
On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 07:34:30AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, Donovan Baarda wrote:
[...]
I'll do an upload in the next couple of hours with this changes.
[...]
BTW, thanks for doing the package... nice work :-)
Unsetting of http_proxy is only there to bypass a bug
I'm Cc'ing this to debian-python because it has stuff that can impact on
other python packages.
On Tue, 2004-02-03 at 06:20, Andreas Tille wrote:
On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, Donovan Baarda wrote:
Yeah, if the postinst simply unset them both before running at least
$PYTHON runalltests.py it should
I'm glad to see this.
We've been using ZopeTestCase for unit tests on our zope products.
I recommend it to anyone doing zope product development.
- Original Message -
From: Andreas Tille [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Debian Python debian-python@lists.debian.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004
On Sat, 2003-11-22 at 03:13, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le ven 21/11/2003 à 01:49, Donovan Baarda a écrit :
Unfortunately, the policy fails to take into account all the
source-package and build-depends issues. This means the clean separation
of python and pythonX.Y is not actually that clean
traumatic
transition.
Unfortunately, the policy fails to take into account all the
source-package and build-depends issues. This means the clean separation
of python and pythonX.Y is not actually that clean... some more work is
needed on the policy to resolve these issues.
--
Donovan Baarda [EMAIL
a different python2.2[-foo] source package that no-longer
generates a python[-foo] wrapper.
--
Donovan Baarda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://minkirri.apana.org.au/~abo/
On Sun, 2003-10-05 at 02:55, Matthias Klose wrote:
Donovan Baarda writes:
On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 02:28:52PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Hi, Colin Watson wrote:
[...]
The second problem is is when we get python (2.4), a new python2.3
package will need to be released just to fix
it forces the python
(2.3) transition which I really don't want to do until it is ready. It
doesn't have to be this way.
Should someone file a bug report against this?
--
Donovan Baarda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://minkirri.apana.org.au/~abo/
On Tue, 2003-09-30 at 06:50, Matthias Klose wrote:
Colin Watson writes:
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 11:29:12PM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
what about python2.3 having Depends: python (= 2.3)
This is IMHO a policy violation. python (2.3) should depend on python2.3,
python2.3 should
long should Debian ship
python2.1?
I'd be inclined to leave them there until they get nasty bug reports
that no one can be bothered fixing... drop them as they break, unless
demand insists they get fixed, until demand insists they all go away to
free up archive space.
--
Donovan Baarda [EMAIL
access. While the old pyc's hang around, they
take up space and add slightly more overhead than no pyc's at all
(python will try them first before realising they were compiled with the
wrong version).
--
Donovan Baarda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://minkirri.apana.org.au/~abo/
the next week.
I dunno when you posted this, but looking at the packages already in
testing and unstable it looks like you are already well on the way.
What's there already looks pretty good.
--
Donovan Baarda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://minkirri.apana.org.au/~abo/
nitpick is I think that 3.1.
Version Independent Programs should be changed to 3.1. Programs Using
the Default Python. Also para 3.2 should probably be renumbered to para
3.1.1 as it applies specifically to programs using the default python.
--
Donovan Baarda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http
).
--
Donovan Baarda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
a
bug-report.
--
Donovan Baarda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
G'day,
It's late and I don't have much time... but thought I'd quickly respond
to this one;
On Sat, 2003-08-16 at 00:20, Matthias Klose wrote:
Donovan Baarda writes:
But that was kinda the point... you should be able to install a
pythonX.Y package without python (X.Y). This way you get
the problem?
--
Donovan Baarda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
python (2.2) from testing.
Testing will not transition to python (2.3) until all the python-foo
packages are fixed.
--
Donovan Baarda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://minkirri.apana.org.au/~abo/
On Tue, 2003-08-12 at 12:54, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Hi,
Donovan Baarda wrote:
Using this the python package can notify all packages that depend on
it by calling dpkg-reconfigure on them;
That would work for me too, of course.
egrep ^install ok installed:[^:]*:.*$PYTHONXY
installations of python.
--
Donovan Baarda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://minkirri.apana.org.au/~abo/
for packages that use
debconf. If it does, than an alternative would be to call
/var/lib/dpkg/info/$p.postinst configure directly.
--
Donovan Baarda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://minkirri.apana.org.au/~abo/
and do this? I think
the python-central stuff has most of the code to handle this, it just
needs a little bit of tweaking.
--
Donovan Baarda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
pythons postinst?
Because there are some applications (ie mailman) that have their own
python modules that are not on the default python-path. These need to
be recompiled too.
--
Donovan Baardahttp
.
--
Donovan Baardahttp://minkirri.apana.org.au/~abo/
On Sun, Aug 10, 2003 at 02:58:21PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
Donovan Baarda writes:
Does anyone want me to contibute some code to try and do this? I think
the python-central stuff has most of the code to handle this, it just
needs a little bit of tweaking.
sure, that would be nice
cases.
There are still some things to be resolved, but these are acknowleged
in the policy itself and are slowly getting resolved.
--
Donovan Baardahttp://minkirri.apana.org.au/~abo/
On Fri, 2003-08-08 at 12:50, Donovan Baarda wrote:
On Thu, 2003-08-07 at 18:44, Alexandre Fayolle wrote:
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 12:58:25PM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
[...]
Python applications using the default Python with their own modules not
in /usr/lib/site-python... not an issue
On Thu, 2003-08-07 at 18:44, Alexandre Fayolle wrote:
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 12:58:25PM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
[...]
Python applications using the default Python with their own modules not
in /usr/lib/site-python... not an issue?
Actually... I think I prefer /usr/lib/python/site
-reconfigure.
This has the advantage of notifying all these packages when the
default python has changed so they can do other stuff if they need to.
--
Donovan Baarda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 2003-04-19 at 15:29, Matthias Klose wrote:
Donovan Baarda writes:
The things that need resolving, in no particular order;
1) moving /usr/lib/python* into /usr/share/python*. I consider this low
priority, but something that should be done one day. There are possibly
some issues
On Fri, 2003-04-18 at 19:54, Matthias Klose wrote:
[...]
And/or take a look at dh_python, which does all this for free...
BTW, where can we find this? I'd like to take a look.
--
Donovan Baardahttp
when pythonX.Y is removed.
--
Donovan Baardahttp://minkirri.apana.org.au/~abo/
.
--
Donovan Baardahttp://minkirri.apana.org.au/~abo/
On Sat, 2003-03-29 at 01:11, Rasmus Toftdahl Olesen wrote:
ons, 2003-03-26 kl. 04:04 skrev [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[Snip]
checking for python... /usr/bin/python
checking python version... 2.2
The configure script uses python2.2, while the woody python-gtk package
is installed in python2.1 - so
On Thu, 2003-02-06 at 06:55, Cédric Delfosse wrote:
Hello,
I think I am going to ITP boa-constructor (RFP at
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?archive=nobug=101974 ).
AFAIK nobody is working on it. Please confirm.
Way cool... boa-constructor is very nice.
I'm not sure what state
On Fri, 2003-01-31 at 09:59, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le jeu 30/01/2003 à 22:42, Bernhard Kuemel a écrit :
[...]
ImportError: /usr/local/lib/python2.2/lib-dynload/math.so: undefined
symbol: PyFPE_jbuf
The issue isn't in mailman. You have some
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 12:16:41PM -0600, Evan Simpson wrote:
I'm running into dependency clashes while trying to install wxPython,
and looking for help.
Since I am a Zope developer, and different versions of Zope rely on
different versions of Python, I need to have several versions of
On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 05:21:34PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
Donovan Baarda writes:
I wouldn't call moving some files the packaging hell, and I have yet to
understand why /usr/lib/mailman is so much saner or better than
/usr/lib/python/site-packages/mailman.
I looked
On Tue, Oct 01, 2002 at 12:23:38AM +1200, Carey Evans wrote:
Donovan Baarda wrote:
[...]
It might also be nice to have separate files that list the directories
or source files to compile for each package, and have python-central
call compileall itself, but I guess this is a separate issue
On Sun, Sep 29, 2002 at 12:26:30AM +0200, Bastian Kleineidam wrote:
Hi,
uploaded the new version 0.4 at
http://people.debian.org/~calvin/python-central/
python-central (0.4) unstable; urgency=low
* renamed register-python-package to python-register, this way
its prefixed with
On Sun, Sep 29, 2002 at 05:51:30PM +0200, Bastian Kleineidam wrote:
On Sun, Sep 29, 2002 at 11:29:02PM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
I've just had a look at this and it looks good. It perfectly meets the
requirement of allowing pure python module packages to support multiple
pythonX.Y python
On Sun, Sep 08, 2002 at 02:49:24PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
* Graham Wilson
| On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 09:08:36AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
| Until dpkg supports triggers, I think what the emacsen does it the
| most sane -- I'd be really, really happy if python modules/apps were
On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 08:49:21AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 07:48:38AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
[...]
Remember, /usr/bin/python is a symlink installed by the python package,
and without a dependancy on this package there is no gaurentee that it
will
On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 07:48:38AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
You should depend on exactly the Python versions you support, not on
python. For example
Depends: python1.5 | python2.1 | python2.2
I see. But why not simply Depends: python (= 1.5)
I think this is wrong. If this is
On Mon, Aug 26, 2002 at 09:11:38PM +0200, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
hi,
i just had a little email exchange with Christian Kurz about dput and i
think the python policy need to be clarified. some background...
last upload of python broke dput dependencies: they were
python (=
On Mon, Aug 26, 2002 at 07:55:45AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
Donovan Baarda writes:
On Sat, Aug 24, 2002 at 07:48:31PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
Some comments:
- python-central should have a configuration option, how files are
compiled. Most users don't need compilation
On Sun, Aug 25, 2002 at 09:14:58PM -0500, Graham Wilson wrote:
On Mon, Aug 26, 2002 at 10:43:12AM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
In the end, I suspect it would be just as easy or easier to
re-structure mailman to put it's modules in
/usr/lib/python/site-packages.
then normal python
On Fri, Aug 23, 2002 at 11:29:12PM -0500, Graham Wilson wrote:
On Fri, Aug 23, 2002 at 11:33:10PM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
BTW, what is happening with python-central... is it becoming standard?
If so, the pythonX.X packages will need to use it.
what is python-central?
An experimental
On Fri, Aug 23, 2002 at 06:35:02PM +0200, Martin Sj?gren wrote:
fre 2002-08-23 klockan 18.28 skrev Jim Penny:
What packages do you have in mind? Some of the c-extension maintainers,
myself included, have an informal policy of support everything in the
distribution, but do not have any
On Sat, Aug 24, 2002 at 12:52:33AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
Anthony Towns writes:
On Fri, Aug 23, 2002 at 11:33:10PM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
On Fri, Aug 23, 2002 at 01:48:36PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
I'm planning to make python2.2 the python default version for unstable
On Fri, Aug 23, 2002 at 01:48:36PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
I'm planning to make python2.2 the python default version for unstable
next week (uploading the packages on 2002-08-28). Preliminary packages
can be found at
http://ftp-master.debian.org/~doko/python/
Please send
On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 09:22:51PM +0200, Florent Rougon wrote:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Python 1.5.2 (#0, Jan 13 2002, 13:19:04) [GCC 2.95.4 20011223 (Debian
prerelease)] on linux2
Copyright 1991-1995 Stichting Mathematisch Centrum, Amsterdam
''.lower()
Traceback
On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 04:28:53PM -0400, Jim Penny wrote:
On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 02:54:31PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
On Aug 14, Laura Creighton wrote:
[...]
One final point. We will almost definitely not switch the default
python in sid (current unstable), until there is talk that
On Thu, Jul 25, 2002 at 03:28:59PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
On Jul 25, Matthias Klose wrote:
My current plan is:
- upload python2.3 packages soon (when 2.3alpha1 is released)
- remove python1.5 from unstable
- adopt python-central for 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3, hopefully with the
On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 04:34:18AM -, Moshe Zadka wrote:
On Thu, 23 May 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Baarda) wrote:
[...]
This situation is identical to the existing idle package. It's worth looking
at how it handles it.
I'll take a look, thanks.
Note the naming convention
On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 10:10:51AM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
[...]
1a) as 1), but also provide foo symlink for python (default).
as 1), but also make foo (Depends: python (=2.1), python (2.2),
foo-python2.1) with symlink /usr/bin/foo to /usr/bin/foo-python2.2
Ack! typo... should be /usr
On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 10:57:43AM +0200, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote:
After a short mail exchange with Joey Hess, I decided not ot package
zope-devhelper any more.
Instead, we camed out with a better idea: implement a debhelper program that
can install sheared debconf templates
On Sat, Apr 27, 2002 at 04:36:57PM +0200, Bastian Kleineidam wrote:
Yeah,
finally got around to update this package. Thanks to Donovan Baarda
for his improvements!
Please test this one if you want to build Python packages or modules.
URL: http://people.debian.org/~calvin/python-central
On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 11:44:56AM +0100, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
Hi,
I've had a small discussion with Julian Gilbey, packager of pktrace.
Julian decided to make pktrace depend on python2.1, while pktrace does
not depend on a specific python version per se.
He asked me to take it up
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 09:07:53PM +0100, Bastian Kleineidam wrote:
Hi Donovan,
On Sat, Feb 23, 2002 at 10:38:17AM +1100, Donovan Baarda wrote:
Did you see my analysis and modified register-python-package script? I
posted it under a misleading subject by mistake (responded to another
On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 05:38:25PM +0100, Carel Fellinger wrote:
On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 03:34:46PM +1100, Donovan Baarda wrote:
...
OK, I got creative and figured out a way the python-central could work
without using an emac's style registry, instead just using the existing dpkg
Depends
On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 05:54:24PM -0500, Jim Penny wrote:
On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 10:35:47AM +1100, Donovan Baarda wrote:
On Sat, Feb 23, 2002 at 03:31:26PM -0500, Jim Penny wrote:
[...]
The packages, provided they are built right, will be pretty self
explanitory. Installing python-foo
On Sat, Feb 23, 2002 at 10:11:41PM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
On Sat, Feb 23, 2002 at 12:45:07PM +1100, Donovan Baarda wrote:
It may be that as python is simpler, we can simply have a script in a
python-common package which does something like (pardon me if I get
[... sample scripts
On Sat, Feb 23, 2002 at 03:31:26PM -0500, Jim Penny wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 07:03:59PM -0500, Jim Penny wrote:
On Sat, Feb 23, 2002 at 10:38:17AM +1100, Donovan Baarda wrote:
On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 12:05:22AM +0100, Bastian Kleineidam wrote:
[...]
Did you see my analysis
On Sat, Feb 23, 2002 at 10:38:17AM +1100, Donovan Baarda wrote:
On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 12:05:22AM +0100, Bastian Kleineidam wrote:
Hello.
The first version of the python-central package is online at
http://people.debian.org/~calvin/python-central/
It provides support for installing
On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 12:05:22AM +0100, Bastian Kleineidam wrote:
Hello.
The first version of the python-central package is online at
http://people.debian.org/~calvin/python-central/
It provides support for installing pure Python modules independent
of the Python version (see Python
On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 10:06:06PM +0100, Christian Kurz wrote:
On 22/02/02, Donovan Baarda wrote:
First, remember that this tool is explicity for the subset of packages
containing pure-python modules that work with multiple versions of Python.
Well, but that's a good point for starting
On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 10:17:16PM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 10:19:56PM +1100, Donovan Baarda wrote:
Why not take the emacsen-common method and code and use this for
python? It probably won't work for C-extension modules, but it could
make life easier
On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 11:28:50AM +0100, Bastian Kleineidam wrote:
On Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 07:41:31PM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
I have a suggestion, which may already have been thought of.
For Python Policy 2.2.3, see
On Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 10:26:26AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
Donovan Baarda writes:
G'day,
just thought I'd have another look at the current policy and I couldn't find
it. Where is it again?
/usr/share/doc/python, anybody actually reading the docs?
Ahh, it's included in the python
On Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 07:41:31PM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
I have a suggestion, which may already have been thought of.
Need: a python-module (pure Python) providing package should provide
byte-compiled versions for all installed python versions (as long as
there are no version
G'day,
just thought I'd have another look at the current policy and I couldn't find
it. Where is it again?
Can we get a link to it put on the Debian devel page?
http://www.debian.org/devel/
--
--
ABO: finger [EMAIL
Quoting Jim Penny [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 11:44:27PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 07:22:36AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
Anthony Towns writes:
[...]
BTW: I have no feeling about dropping python-2.0; it appears that
portation from 2.0 to 2.1 is
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 11:53:24AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 08:00:20PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
If I don't hear a serious reason to keep python1.5, I plan to file a
bug report for ftp.debian.org to remove the python1.5 package.
Eh?
python1.5's still useful
Quoting Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au:
On Thu, Nov 01, 2001 at 11:38:57AM +1100, Donovan Baarda wrote:
Note that additionaly all packages that depend on plucker _and_ python
must
use Depends: plucker, python2.1 and _not_ Depends: plucker, python
(= 2.1),
python (2.2).
Uh
Quoting Matthias Klose [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Mikael Hedin writes:
Hi, I'm just finishing my new plucker package. And then I read the
policy again, and it said I should call my program python2.1-plucker,
as I use method 2 and the upstream name is plucker.
Is plucker an application or a
On Sun, Oct 28, 2001 at 02:57:15PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
Matthias Klose [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
2.1.1 Support Only The Default Version
[...]
+ a new change to the major version of python, will make all
packages depending on the default version being uninstalled, right?
G'day,
Gregor's already answered most of these, but thought I'd throw in a comment
or two.
On Sun, Oct 28, 2001 at 12:11:04AM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
On Oct 27, Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
I've put a version 0.3.6 of the Python Policy Draft on
http://people.debian.org/~flight/python/. The
1 - 100 of 115 matches
Mail list logo
