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 not distutils is us
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 wrote:
> > >
> > > to be honest, I still don't know what you're asking for. What do you
> > > want us to do? Patch 2.
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 update.
>
> Some comments, apo
Hi,
Le 19/01/2016 22:17, Sandro Tosi a écrit :
could you push already your changes to git (maybe first in a temporary
branch)? once done, I would give it a look
It is here :
ssh://git.debian.org/git/python-modules/packages/ipython4.git
Not perfect, but it's a start.
Snark on #debian-python
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 insane was
>a horrible idea). There's an earlier spot in the document where it says that
>everyth
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
> >insane was a horrible idea).
Scott Kitterman 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 the only places this comes up.
Yes, that's likely because when the Debian Python policy was initially
drafted, there was no
Scott Kitterman 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 categories: […]
This is great to see, thank you Scott.
Where is the Git (I assume?) repository you're using for VCS of thi
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’. Currently that's a Bazaar repository at
.
--
\ “The entertainment industry calls DRM "se
On Sunday, January 24, 2016 04:46:09 PM Ben Finney wrote:
> Scott Kitterman 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 categories: […]
>
> This is great to see, thank you Scott.
On Sunday, January 24, 2016 04:33:55 PM Ben Finney wrote:
> Scott Kitterman 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 the only places this comes up.
>
> Yes, that's likely becau
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’. Currently that's a Bazaar repos
12 matches
Mail list logo