On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 04:16:20PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Matt Zimmerman:
>
> > One of the appealing things about the Python language is their "batteries
> > included" philosophy: users can assume that the standard library is
> > available, documentati
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 01:04:25PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> Granted if it is a real issue, then why not use perl? Yes, I hate
> >> perl too, but really, the argument "hey, people like Python too&
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 01:48:11AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > One example is .config maintainer scripts, some of which are quite complex
> > and worth writing in a higher-level language than shell.
>
> This
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 02:05:40PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 03:34:58PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> > > If we followed the same method for python-base, then we would
> > >
> > > a) instroduce python-base iff we h
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:40:55AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I asked this question earlier, and no one answered. Are there .config
> scripts being written in python today in Ubuntu? (Hmm, where are the python
> bindings for debconf, and what ensures that they're installed?)
No, not yet. Th
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 10:38:08PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Ok, but now I'm confused: why is python-minimal needed in Essential?
> Why not simply depend on it straightforwardly?
Because there are parts of the packaging system where there is no way to
express such a dependency relationsh
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 12:16:55AM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> Just to clarify, because I'm also confused and genuinely curious... you
> guys use the minimal package during bootstrapping or something and then by
> the end of the installation process you will necessarily have the full
> python som
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 08:42:57PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Programs that want to use python can assume that python-minimal is
> there (since it's Essential), and since python-minimal is never
> installed without python also installed, they can also now assume that
> all of python, inclu
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 06:38:55PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 03:18:48PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 05:58:20PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> > > That said, I don't really understand why it's Ok for Ubuntu
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 05:58:20PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> That said, I don't really understand why it's Ok for Ubuntu to do this but
> not us.
Ubuntu never installs python-minimal without python, even in base.
--
- mdz
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "u
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 09:23:30PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-19 12:45]:
> > Please don't do this; it implies that python-minimal would be part
> > of base, but not full python, and this is something that python
> >
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 03:34:58PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> If we followed the same method for python-base, then we would
>
> a) instroduce python-base iff we had some package(s) written in python
>that we wanted in the base system (apt-listchanges comes to mind)
> b) include only the modules
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 01:14:17PM +0100, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
> you are able to do init.d scripts, pre- and postinsts etc in
> python. That is a "ease of development" helper for ubuntu.
All of those can be done today using dependencies.
.config scripts, for example, cannot.
--
- mdz
--
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 07:21:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 09:56:59PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 12:12:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > * allowing us to easily use python (as well as C, C++ and perl) f
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 12:12:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> * allowing us to easily use python (as well as C, C++ and perl) for programs
> in the base system
>
> * allowing us to provide python early on installs to make users happier
Please note that it is against upstream's explicit
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 08:16:32PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 12:12:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Some reasons:
>
> > * compatability with Ubuntu -- so that packages can be easily ported back
> > and forth between us and them; I expect most of the work ubun
On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 01:31:25PM +0200, Norbert Tretkowski wrote:
> severity 315152 wishlist
> thanks
>
> * Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > Package: bzr
> > Version: 0.0.5-1
> > Severity: important
> > Justification: fails to build from source
> >
>
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 03:23:37PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> In a perfect world, somehow the correct gcc would be used (to make sure
> C++ ABI problems don't happen). Not sure if we can have that perfect world
> or not; see below.
No, we can't. Not today, and definitely not a year ago.
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 01:05:37AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 06:45:21PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > According to 2.4.2, the package should build correctly. It did.
> > However, it didn't run because you had an incompatible version of apt
On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 05:46:51PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Saturday, Jun 14, 2003, at 01:40 US/Eastern, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> >
> >If you had wanted to find out the answer before sending this to
> >debian-devel, you would not have had to look very far.
>
On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 12:28:30PM +0200, Bastian Kleineidam wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 01:40:12AM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > If you had wanted to find out the answer before sending this to
> > debian-devel, you would not have had to look very far.
> > bugs.debi
On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 01:11:56AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> I've managed to get python-apt (and thus apt-listchanges) working again
> on my testing system. What a PITA...
>
> Anyway, I first just tried to recompile python-apt-0.5.4.3. Compile went
> fine, but the first attempt to execu
On Thu, Jan 23, 2003 at 05:35:26PM +0100, Bastian Kleineidam wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 07:47:11AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > > I suggest to disable the above two modules in python2.2 (which is in
> > > woody), even if existing applications can break. What do you think?
> >
> > I'd ra
On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 12:08:31PM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> Two things to check;
>
> 1) does the mailman script start with "#!/usr/bin/python" or "#!/usr/bin/env
> python"
It starts with #!/usr/bin/env python
> 2) does the user reporting the problem have a rogue copy of python 1.x
> insta
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 Centr
On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 01:35:25PM -0500, Jim Penny wrote:
> Objection 1: Autocompilation can result in progams that compile but
> do not work as expected.
> Examples: scope rule changes. Inheritance Changes. Arithmetic Changes.
This has nothing to do with the organization of the
On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 07:02:02PM +0100, Bastian Kleineidam wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 12:48:02PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > Good plan; why not do that for python? How about a
> >
> > /usr/sbin/python-pkgtool --install
> > /usr/sbin/python-pkgtool
On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 12:33:55PM +0100, Christian Kurz wrote:
> On 17/02/02, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > and this one package with one set of install/remove scripts supports
> > emacs20, emacs21, xemacs21. When a new emacs is installed, the
> > installed elisp packages are
28 matches
Mail list logo
