Re: unicode in setup.py file causing RC bug

2007-05-07 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Monday 07 May 2007 20:43, Kevin Coyner wrote: I maintain the package rpl, which today received an RC bug http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=422604 because it FTBFS in an autobuild on Lucas. The reason it failed is due to the use of unicode for the author's name in the

Re: unicode in setup.py file causing RC bug

2007-05-07 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Monday 07 May 2007 22:11, Ben Finney wrote: Scott Kitterman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: # -*- encoding: utf-8 -*- Specifically, the directive is 'coding: utf-8' inside those delimiters. (encoding will work also, but only because the parsing of that line allows it.) Thanks. Good to know

Re: Joining the team and RFS python-avc

2007-11-05 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 01:21:31 +0100 Bernd Zeimetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Josselin Mouette wrote: Le mardi 06 novembre 2007 à 00:22 +0100, Bernd Zeimetz a écrit : Please get the _official_ Python Policy fixed and such requirements included if you like to have them. The official Python

Re: [Python-modules-team] On team maintainership of DPMT (PAPT) packages

2008-03-09 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 17:34:05 +0100 Sandro Tosi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, I'd like to report here my feelings about the current way to maintain package in our repositories (DPMT and PAPT). As of now, policy[1] states that: Thus if you bring some packages into the team, you can keep your

Re: dependency questions

2008-08-24 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Sunday 24 August 2008 18:03, Eike Nicklas wrote: Hi all, I have a program that depends on python = 2.4 and elementtree (which is included in python = 2.5). What is the best way to express this dependency in debian/control (I am using python-support)? a) Depends: python (=2.4), python

Re: Let's switch to viewsvn for Vcs-Browser?

2008-11-01 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 18:23:41 +0100 Emilio Pozuelo Monfort [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sandro Tosi wrote: Hi all, following up what once POX suggested on irc, I'd like to switch from wsvn to viewsvn (compare the difference yourself at [1] and [2]) for Vcs-Browser field. Please! Also, would it be

Re: Need help with revelation

2008-12-23 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 09:10:35 +0100 PaweB Tcza pte...@uw.edu.pl wrote: Scott Kitterman pisze: On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 21:00:40 + b...@bc-bd.org wrote: ... Simply removing the package may be a bad idea, as people who are using revelation will then no longer be able to access their password lists

Re: numpy 1.2.1, switching to git?

2008-12-23 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 15:08:03 +0100 Loïc Minier l...@dooz.org wrote: On Mon, Dec 08, 2008, Ondrej Certik wrote: P.S. bzed, POX, isn't it time to move our packaging to git? So that I can just commit such patches in a branch and also so that we don't have to mess with the orig.tar.gz, svn-uscan

Re: XS-Python-Version vs pyversions

2009-09-08 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 11:49:20 +0200 Bernd Zeimetz be...@bzed.de wrote: Steve Langasek wrote: The XS-Python-Version field was specified as a tool for detecting, without having to download and inspect individual source packages, that a given package can be successfully rebuilt for a python

Re: XS-Python-Version vs pyversions

2009-09-08 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 12:21:07 +0200 Bernd Zeimetz be...@bzed.de wrote: There was a policy process? Apparently we still need one of these. Can we work on solving this? I think having a mechanism to create an actual current, maintained Python policy is a pre-requisite to solving a lot of these

Re: XS-Python-Version vs pyversions

2009-09-08 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 15:52:57 +0200 Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org wrote: Le mardi 08 septembre 2009 à 09:35 -0400, Scott Kitterman a écrit : Does pyversions offer any real advantages over XS-...? All things being equal, if both helpers support a common method for this I think we should

Re: XS-Python-Version vs pyversions

2009-09-08 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 17:48:18 +0200 Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org wrote: Le mardi 08 septembre 2009 à 21:50 +0700, Mikhail Gusarov a écrit : Twas brillig at 16:42:41 08.09.2009 UTC+02 when pi...@debian.org did gyre and gimble: PO I.e. using build dependencies to determine[1] requested

Re: XS-Python-Version vs pyversions

2009-09-08 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 19:06:17 +0200 Piotr O|arowski pi...@debian.org wrote: ... how about using build dependencies *if* pyversions and XS-P-V are not set and removing support of these fields once all packages will use the new approach? Seems reasonable. Scott K -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to

Re: XS-Python-Version vs pyversions

2009-09-08 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 19:19:12 +0200 Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org wrote: Le mardi 08 septembre 2009 à 19:06 +0200, Piotr O|arowski a écrit : Since the build-dep approach should have agreement from all the helper maintainers before it moves forward, I think it would be a good first step

Re: will 2.6 be default?

2009-09-12 Thread Scott Kitterman
Akira Kitada wrote: On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 12:27 AM, Nicolas Chauvat nicolas.chau...@logilab.fr wrote: It would indeed be nice if someone could list the hurdles that stand between us and Python 2.6 in Squeeze, or point us to the web page that lists them. Python2.6 is in experimental:

Re: Work on a current Debian Python policy (was: Lintian warnings for Python packaging?)

2009-11-02 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 16:50:00 +0300 anatoly techtonik techto...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Scott Kitterman deb...@kitterman.com wrote: I'm not aware of any ongoing work.  I would be willing to help work on such a thing, but we currently lack a good mechanism for developing

Re: Work on a current Debian Python policy (was: Lintian warnings for Python packaging?)

2009-11-03 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 19:02:21 +0100 Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org wrote: Le lundi 02 novembre 2009 à 21:22 +1100, Ben Finney a écrit : Is there a silent Debian Python policy drafter out there who would like to step forward? Or is this work now moribund? Bug reports concerning the Python

Re: Recursive dependencies on pythonX.Y-foo practices

2009-12-11 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 14:58:47 +0100 Loïc Minier l...@dooz.org wrote: On Thu, Dec 10, 2009, Josselin Mouette wrote: Rationale: let s consider a package foo that uses python2.4 directly (with a python2.4 shebang), and depends on python2.4-foo, provided by python-foo, which in turn depends on

Final updates for this Python Policy revision

2009-12-11 Thread Scott Kitterman
I think we are at the point where the proposed update to the Python Policy is clearly more relevant and better than what is currently published. Once this is done, we can work on refinements. Loïc Minier (lool) did attempt to send the proposed final patch set to the list and it has gotten

Re: Final updates for this Python Policy revision

2009-12-12 Thread Scott Kitterman
Hello, The policy is under GPL license which is kind of ridiculous to prevent citing Debian Policy in private talks. I imagine people discussing those folks at Debian. Have you heard - they've changed you-know-what to make packaging easier. =) Is there any license that more clearly states

Python Policy Update

2009-12-13 Thread Scott Kitterman
doko uploaded the new policy in python-defaults, so we can consider this edition complete. Certainly it's not perfect and I'll be keeping an eye on bug submissions. I've also been added to uploaders for python-defaults and will continue to work on this. I know a lot of effort has been made

Re: PyGTK and Python 2.6

2009-12-16 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 22:56:22 + David D Lowe daviddlowe.fl...@googlemail.com wrote: Hello all. I'm the author of Epidermis, a theme manager for GNOME. More details at: http://epidermis.tuxfamily.org Until now, I've only ever tested and released Epidermis for Ubuntu, however, I'm interested

Re: new dh_python proposal

2010-01-15 Thread Scott Kitterman
...@debian.org Scott Kitterman sc...@kitterman.com version 0.9.1.0 --- Abstract This document describes the packaging of Python within the Debian GNU

Re: Request to join the Python Modules Packaging Team

2010-01-19 Thread Scott Kitterman
Piotr Ożarowski pi...@debian.org wrote: The Ubuntu MOTUs require that the packages land first in Debian. require? good ;-) Require is a bit strong. I've more than once strongly encouraged people to come to debian-python as the best way to go about it. Scott K

Python 2.6 is now a supported Python in Unstable

2010-01-22 Thread Scott Kitterman
http://packages.qa.debian.org/p/python-defaults/news/20100122T123227Z.html We're looking into scheduling another round of binNMUs and raising the severity of existing Python 2.6 transition bugs. Once the analysis of additional sourceful uploads needed is done, we'll post that as well. Scott

Re: Ongoing Python Transition: related FTBFSes

2010-01-28 Thread Scott Kitterman
Scott Kitterman deb...@kitterman.com (17/12/2009): I believe that we are getting close to uploading Python 2.6 to Unstable and dropping Python 2.4 as a supported Python version. If we finish preparations in the next week, are there any ongoing transitions a python2.6/python- defaults upload

Re: RFS: python-whisper

2010-01-28 Thread Scott Kitterman
Elliot Murphy ell...@canonical.com writes: (Sorry for top-posting, android does not allow me any other option). I wonder why people who use Android keep on doing this an apologising for it, instead of the far superior options: * don't use Android, and/or * agitate for this Android bug to

Re: RFS: python-cloudfiles

2010-04-02 Thread Scott Kitterman
Jonathan Wiltshire deb...@jwiltshire.org.uk wrote: On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 07:11:55AM -0500, Michael Shuler wrote: I would enjoy some feedback from the python team on this package, if someone has a bit of time to review my work. I can't sponsor your work, but a brief review. There are just

Re: Is it worth back porting PEP 3147 to Python 3.2?

2010-04-20 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Monday, April 19, 2010 05:53:05 pm Barry Warsaw wrote: Apologies for the cross-post, but I want to make sure that everyone who cares about Python on both Debian and Ubuntu gets a chance to weigh in. On Friday, Guido approved and I landed the implementation of PEP 3147 on the py3k trunk

Re: Is it worth back porting PEP 3147 to Python 3.2?

2010-04-22 Thread Scott Kitterman
Barry Warsaw ba...@canonical.com wrote: On Apr 20, 2010, at 04:57 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: I think it is difficult to know for sure what the future will hold. If the backport is not technically complex, I think a backport with the default to off would be a nice tool in the box is things go

Re: Python versions for Ubuntu 10.10 (Maverick Meerkat)

2010-05-18 Thread Scott Kitterman
Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org wrote: So, on to Python... I've started a wiki page which I'll use to collate all the work on Python versions for Ubuntu 10.10: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MaverickMeerkat/TechnicalOverview/Python In summary, we would really like Maverick to ship Python 2.6, 2.7,

Improved Python 3 Support In Debian

2010-05-18 Thread Scott Kitterman
Last night I started looking at porting pyversions to Python 3 with the idea of providing a py3versions in python3-defaults. The plan would be to have python3.1 as the default and only supported version for Squeeze. The goal is to have the run time requirements for python3 not require python2.

Re: Python versions for Ubuntu 10.10 (Maverick Meerkat)

2010-05-19 Thread Scott Kitterman
[Piotr Ożarowski, 2010-05-19] we have experimental for aggressive changes... unless you wanted to use Debian experimental, debian-python mailing list and our help since the beginning and later sync it in Ubuntu (if you decide it's ready and we will not want to make further changes). If

Python and python3 as separate runtime systems

2010-05-26 Thread Scott Kitterman
This has been discussed a bit, but I'd like to see where Debian Python consensus is on this. I think users who don't care about Python 3 yet, should be able to have systems that don't pull any Python 3 elements on by accident. Python 3 is primarily of interest to developers right now and most

Re: Python and python3 as separate runtime systems

2010-05-27 Thread Scott Kitterman
Lino Mastrodomenico l.mastrodomen...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/5/26 Scott Kitterman deb...@kitterman.com: This would mean separate python-foo and python3-foo binaries where both are supported from the same source. What will happen in the not-so-close future when Python 2.x is no longer supported

Proposed Python Policy changes for shipping py3versions

2010-06-05 Thread Scott Kitterman
Thank you to everyone that reviewed my first py3versions attempt. I've updated it and pushed it to the pkg-python VCS. Source is available at: bzr co http://alioth.debian.org/anonscm/bzr/pkg-python/python3-defaults-debian Attached is a patch to describe the related policy changes. This is

Possible Mass Bug Filing: String Exceptions Removed in Python 2.6

2010-06-05 Thread Scott Kitterman
As was recently discussed on debian-python: http://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2010/05/msg00111.html String exceptions are no longer supported at all in Python 2.6. Since this is the Python version planned to be the default in Squeeze, packages still using them should be fixed. String

Re: Proposed Python Policy changes for shipping py3versions

2010-06-06 Thread Scott Kitterman
Jakub Wilk jw...@debian.org wrote: * Scott Kitterman deb...@kitterman.com, 2010-06-05, 19:31: + will represent the current default Debian Python version. The + binary package packagepython3/package will represent the current + Debian Python3 version. As far as is reasonable

Policy for Specifying Supported Versions for Python3

2010-06-18 Thread Scott Kitterman
The version of Python Policy that was just uploaded to unstable is the first one that attempts to address Python3. It is just a start and more changes are needed. POX and I were just discussion this and discovered that we had been carrying different assumptions about how packages would be

Re: Policy for Specifying Supported Versions for Python3

2010-06-18 Thread Scott Kitterman
Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org wrote: On Jun 18, 2010, at 03:45 PM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: [Luca Falavigna, 2010-06-18] Il 18/06/2010 14.37, Scott Kitterman ha scritto: XS-Python-Version: = 2.x XS-Python3-Version: = 3.x +1 (but with XB-Python-Version, i.e. no XB-Python3-Version) Agreed

Re: Policy for Specifying Supported Versions for Python3

2010-06-20 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Saturday, June 19, 2010 07:06:35 am Bernd Zeimetz wrote: On 06/18/2010 07:11 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: I don't think we need a new debian/control field to achieve the separation. pyversions (as of yesterday's upload) ignores any python3 versions it gets and py3versions ignores anything

Re: Policy for Specifying Supported Versions for Python3

2010-06-21 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Monday, June 21, 2010 05:40:37 pm Barry Warsaw wrote: On Jun 20, 2010, at 04:28 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: I'm going to declare rough consensus around this approach and I'll have a Python policy patch for review shortly. I haven't had time to read this through yet, but I recently posted

Re: Policy for Specifying Supported Versions for Python3

2010-06-21 Thread Scott Kitterman
Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org wrote: On Jun 21, 2010, at 06:30 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: I think most people install Python modules and extensions as dependencies of applications they care to use. For Python developers that actually care about such things, I think it's better that the just

Re: Policy for Specifying Supported Versions for Python3

2010-06-22 Thread Scott Kitterman
Paul Wise p...@debian.org wrote: On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 6:30 AM, Scott Kitterman deb...@kitterman.com wrote: If we maintain a standard that if in Python you import foo, then the Python package name is python-foo and the Python3 package is names python3-foo, I would think this is manageable

Re: XS-Python-Version: current fix (was: Re: RFS: deejayd (updated package))

2010-06-23 Thread Scott Kitterman
Alexandre Rossi alexandre.ro...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, The current version of my package does not launch in unstable following the switch of the current python version. I think it is because of the current keyword in the XS-Python-Version tag. A rebuild fixes the problem. Is this appropriate

Proposed Email to the release team about XS/B-P-V

2010-06-23 Thread Scott Kitterman
Subj: Future requirements for specifying supported Python versions and transition support In Debian Python we are currently discussing how best to specify version information for Python 3. There is a strong (but not unanimous) view among the participants in debian-pyt...@l.d.o and

Re: Proposed Email to the release team about XS/B-P-V

2010-06-23 Thread Scott Kitterman
Piotr Ożarowski pi...@debian.org wrote: [Scott Kitterman, 2010-06-23] 3. Create a new field, X-Python-Version: for Python3 versions. This avoids concerns about control file bloat, but may be a bit confusing in combination with the existing XS/B-P-V. + Please note the lack of XB-Python

Re: Proposed Email to the release team about XS/B-P-V

2010-06-23 Thread Scott Kitterman
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org wrote: Le mercredi 23 juin 2010 à 13:15 -0400, Scott Kitterman a écrit : 1. Use XS/B-P-V for Python and Python3 versions 2. Create a new set of fields, XS/B-Python3-Version. 3. Create a new field, X-Python-Version: for Python3 versions. 4. Create a new

Re: Proposed Email to the release team about XS/B-P-V

2010-06-23 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Wednesday, June 23, 2010 10:01:03 pm Paul Wise wrote: On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 1:15 AM, Scott Kitterman deb...@kitterman.com wrote: In Debian Python we are currently discussing how best to specify version information for Python 3. There is a strong (but not unanimous) view among

Re: Proposed Email to the release team about XS/B-P-V

2010-06-23 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Wednesday, June 23, 2010 11:08:47 pm Paul Wise wrote: On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Scott Kitterman deb...@kitterman.com wrote: The email is meant to go to the release team to address what I understand to be release team specific requirement. I think that the broader question needs

Re: Proposed Email to the release team about XS/B-P-V

2010-06-24 Thread Scott Kitterman
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org wrote: Le mercredi 23 juin 2010 à 21:17 -0400, Scott Kitterman a écrit : 5. End this madness and use the version in build-dependencies instead of asking maintainers to specify it twice - which they usually do wrong. With this approach then with the current

Re: Proposed Email to the release team about XS/B-P-V

2010-06-25 Thread Scott Kitterman
Thanks for everyone's comments. Sent: http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2010/06/msg00211.html Scott K -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive:

Specifying Supported Python Versions - Round 2

2010-06-30 Thread Scott Kitterman
As I had said I would after the last round, I asked the release team about any specific requirements they might have for Python version specification. They don't. My summary of the thread is We want it to be easy. The thread starts here for those interested:

Re: Specifying Supported Python Versions - Round 2

2010-06-30 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Wednesday, June 30, 2010 04:51:38 pm Piotr Ożarowski wrote: [Scott Kitterman, 2010-06-30] For Python3: 1. A new field called X-Python3-Version: It does not support lists of versions (e.g. (3.0, 3.1)). Acceptable values are a single version (e.g 3.1), greater than or equal

Re: Specifying Supported Python Versions - Round 2

2010-06-30 Thread Scott Kitterman
Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org wrote: On Jun 30, 2010, at 04:58 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: On Wednesday, June 30, 2010 04:51:38 pm Piotr Ożarowski wrote: [Scott Kitterman, 2010-06-30] For Python3: 1. A new field called X-Python3-Version: It does not support lists of versions (e.g

Re: Specifying Supported Python Versions - Round 2

2010-06-30 Thread Scott Kitterman
Scott Kitterman deb...@kitterman.com wrote: As I had said I would after the last round, I asked the release team about any specific requirements they might have for Python version specification. They don't. My summary of the thread is We want it to be easy. The thread starts here

Re: Specifying Supported Python Versions - Round 2

2010-07-01 Thread Scott Kitterman
Sandro Tosi mo...@debian.org wrote: Hi Scott, thanks for bringing this up (again :) ). On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 22:41, Scott Kitterman deb...@kitterman.com wrote: As I had said I would after the last round, I asked the release team about any specific requirements they might have for Python

Re: Documenting Python Debuntuisms

2010-07-13 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Tuesday, July 13, 2010 05:05:14 pm Piotr Ożarowski wrote: [Barry Warsaw, 2010-07-13] * http://wiki.debian.org/DebianPython * http://wiki.debian.org/Python I removed some really old pages with Python in the URL What do you think about renaming all /DebianPython.* to /Python\1 so

Re: Quick Update Review

2010-08-13 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Friday, August 13, 2010 11:10:04 am Scott Kitterman wrote: http://paste.debian.net/83034/ captures what I think are the essential policy changes for Squeeze from our discussion about the future of XS-Python-Version and Python 3. Please give it a quick review and let me know if I

Re: Quick Update Review

2010-08-13 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Friday, August 13, 2010 04:58:37 pm Sandro Tosi wrote: Hello, On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 22:47, Scott Kitterman deb...@kitterman.com wrote: On Friday, August 13, 2010 11:10:04 am Scott Kitterman wrote: http://paste.debian.net/83034/ captures what I think are the essential policy changes

Re: Quick Update Review

2010-08-13 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Friday, August 13, 2010 05:42:35 pm Jakub Wilk wrote: * Scott Kitterman deb...@kitterman.com, 2010-08-13, 17:32: IMO the essential thing for Squeeze was getting X-P-V and X3-P-V supported. Well, but python-support, the most widely used helper, doesn't support X-P-V. So what's the point

Re: No minutes from Debconf Python BoF?

2010-08-14 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Saturday, August 14, 2010 03:09:35 am Sandro Tosi wrote: Hello, there was a BoF[1] about the plans for python in squeeze+1 but no minutes was sent to the list: 8 days are passed, so we have waited (while others, like perl team, sent it moments after the bof). [1]

Re: Wheezy plans

2010-10-16 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Friday, October 15, 2010 05:45:24 pm Piotr Ożarowski wrote: FYI: [I already mentioned that on #debian-python and in other places, but it deserves a mail to debian-python as well] I think that we should support Python 2.7 and Python 3.2 only in Wheezy. Python 2.7 is the last version from

Re: debuging a sip4 generated binding

2011-02-15 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Tuesday, February 15, 2011 08:12:37 am Picca Frédéric-Emmanuel wrote: Le Mon, 14 Feb 2011 17:40:59 +0100, Picca Frédéric-Emmanuel frederic-emmanuel.pi...@synchrotron-soleil.fr a écrit : Hello, I am working on a packqge which use PyQt4, but When I try to test it I got this error

Re: Build-time testing

2011-02-22 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Tuesday, February 22, 2011 09:58:36 am Bernd Zeimetz wrote: On 02/22/2011 03:47 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: It would be nice if dh auto-detected a setup.py (and/or missing Makefile) and didn't run 'make test' in that case, so that the override_dh_auto_test wasn't necessary. Yah, I should

Re: About Python 2.7

2011-03-04 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Friday, March 04, 2011 08:30:02 am ProgVal wrote: Hello, Python 2.7 is available in the Experimental repository, and I use it as the default Python interpreter. All modules and software I use works Python 2.7, but, modules and libraries installed with aptitude are installed for Python

Re: shebang lines for Python scripts

2011-03-04 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Friday, March 04, 2011 01:23:40 pm Barry Warsaw wrote: So I know many of you are on python-dev, so you might have seen this come up, but traffic there can be pretty heavy at times. Upstream Python recommends that the shebang line for scripts should be #!/usr/bin/env python however,

Re: shebang lines for Python scripts

2011-03-04 Thread Scott Kitterman
Piotr Ożarowski pi...@debian.org wrote: any objections to change all shebangs (that do not match /usr/bin/python\d(\.\d+) but do math .+python.* regexp) to /usr/bin/python¹ in dh_python2 and to /usr/bin/python3 in dh_python3? (+ an option to disable this behaviour in both helpers) if yes,

Re: shebang lines for Python scripts

2011-03-04 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Friday, March 04, 2011 08:06:55 pm Jakub Wilk wrote: * Piotr Ożarowski pi...@debian.org, 2011-03-05, 01:39: dh_python2 and dh_python3 cannot be used for the same files at the same time (that's why dh_python2 igores python3-* packages, that's why dh_python3 ignores python-* packages and

Re: Switching to git

2011-03-06 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Sunday, March 06, 2011 12:43:23 pm Sandro Tosi wrote: On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 17:33, Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org wrote: Is this a Debian-wide decision, or can each subteam go its own way? each team can decide on its own, but git is very wide accepted within Debian, which is to be

Re: Switching to git

2011-03-06 Thread Scott Kitterman
Robert Collins robe...@robertcollins.net wrote: On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 7:52 AM, Scott Kitterman deb...@kitterman.com wrote: ... reasonably comfortable for both.  It's not as fast a git and it suffers from not being able to do partial checkouts (like git), so it's very much a middle ground

Re: Switching to git

2011-03-06 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Sunday, March 06, 2011 03:02:25 pm Yaroslav Halchenko wrote: On Sun, 06 Mar 2011, Scott Kitterman wrote: One thing that is a clear advantage for bzr is that it supports both a traditional centralized workflow and modern DVCS workflow so that not everyone needs to switch to a foreign

Bug#617272: transition: python3-defaults

2011-03-07 Thread Scott Kitterman
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: transition It looks like we are ready to switch the default python3 in Unstable from 3.1 to 3.2. It should affect a relatively small number of packages. Source uploads needed: distribute

Re: ${python:Breaks}

2011-03-10 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Thursday, March 10, 2011 06:15:01 am Raphael Hertzog wrote: 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

Re: XB-Python-Version in the policy

2011-03-18 Thread Scott Kitterman
Floris Bruynooghe f...@devork.be wrote: Hi The wiki page at http://wiki.debian.org/Python/PyCentral2DhPython2 tells you to remove the XB-Python-Version lines in debian/control but the python policy still says they are required in section 2.3. I presume this is outdated in the policy? If so any

Python Policy Updates

2011-03-18 Thread Scott Kitterman
Today's mail on XB-Python-Version motivates me to send out an overdue call for inputs on further changes to the Python policy. I know that needs to go. What else needs doing? Personally I'd like to concentrate on getting policy for Python 3 to the point that it's possible to produce a correct

Re: Python Policy Updates

2011-03-18 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Friday, March 18, 2011 10:23:05 pm Scott Kitterman wrote: Today's mail on XB-Python-Version motivates me to send out an overdue call for inputs on further changes to the Python policy. I know that needs to go. What else needs doing? Personally I'd like to concentrate on getting policy

Re: Python Policy Updates

2011-03-24 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Thursday, March 24, 2011 09:35:21 am Stefano Rivera wrote: I see we still suggest ${python:Provides}. I was encouraged in #debian-python to never use these unless there's an existing dependency on a versioned package name. There are no real packages using a name like python2.X-modulename.

dh_python2 dropped ${python:Breaks}

2011-03-24 Thread Scott Kitterman
Most of you probably figured this out already from the cc: of 619487 to debian-python, but just in case ... dh_python2 dropped ${python:Breaks} - This means you should remove Breaks: ${python:Breaks} from packages as you update them. In the mean time, it's presence is harmless so there's no

python{3}-defaults updated

2011-03-24 Thread Scott Kitterman
A couple of days ago I updated python-defaults and today (it's still Thursday in my mind because I haven't slept yet) I updated python3-defaults. Unstable now how the latest dh_python2/dh_python3 and pycompile changes. The only difference between Unstable and Experimental is which

Re: it's Python time now

2011-03-31 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Thursday, March 31, 2011 09:54:46 AM Barry Warsaw wrote: On Mar 30, 2011, at 04:02 PM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: FYI: I plan to upload python-sphinx, python-defaults (without Python 2.5, with Python 2.7) and python3-defaults (with Python 3.2 instead of Python 3.2) tomorrow. Please report bug

Python3 3.1 - 3.2 Transition

2011-04-03 Thread Scott Kitterman
The release team has ack'ed the python3 transition (See #617272). I'll upload a new python3-defaults shortly. Once that's in we'll start with the required sourceful uploads and binNMUs. Over the next few days, please keep an eye on any python3 related uploads for unusual results. Since

Starting First Python Transition

2011-04-15 Thread Scott Kitterman
I just uploaded python-defaults to Unstable that drops Python 2.5 and adds Python 2.7 as supports Python versions. Python-central, distribute, and python-stdlib-extensions are already updated to support Python 2.7. The planned python-support upload later today will complete having the core

Re: Starting First Python Transition

2011-04-22 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Thursday, April 21, 2011 09:28:12 PM Barry Warsaw wrote: On Apr 15, 2011, at 10:17 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: I just uploaded python-defaults to Unstable that drops Python 2.5 and adds Python 2.7 as supports Python versions. Python-central, distribute, and python-stdlib-extensions

Re: Introduction

2011-04-23 Thread Scott Kitterman
Lars Wirzenius l...@liw.fi wrote: Hi, I'd like to join the DPMT. I'm going to be uploading my backup application (Obnam, http://braawi.org/obnam/) to Debian, and it has a number of dependencies on Python libraries, which I've also written. I'm starting with the dependencies. In order to have

Re: Starting First Python Transition

2011-04-26 Thread Scott Kitterman
Floris Bruynooghe f...@devork.be wrote: On 22 April 2011 19:55, Stefano Rivera stefa...@debian.org wrote: Hi Barry (2011.04.22_03:28:12_+0200) When I click on 'last log' for say ia64, I just see a build log with no failures in it.  So why does it show up on the main page with straight

Re: dh_python2 transition

2011-05-02 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Monday, May 02, 2011 04:18:57 AM Bernd Zeimetz wrote: On 04/29/2011 09:14 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: On Apr 28, 2011, at 02:41 PM, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: I can't see any problemswith pysupport here - http://wiki.debian.org/Python/PythonSupportToDHPython2 The migration is well documented and

Re: Request to Join Project Python Applications Packaging Team

2011-05-04 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Wednesday, May 04, 2011 02:23:58 AM nore...@alioth.debian.org wrote: Johannes Ring has requested to join your project. Comments by the user: Hi, I am currently a member of the DPMT, but now I have started working on some packages that fits better under the umbrella of PAPT. Therefore, I

Re: pypi-install for python3?

2011-05-15 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Sunday, May 15, 2011 06:24:47 PM Barry Warsaw wrote: On May 15, 2011, at 10:40 PM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: [Janne Snabb, 2011-05-13] I assume that pypi-install is the most sensible way to install Python packages which have not been packaged for Debian. true [...] How do I tell

Re: pypi-install for python3?

2011-05-16 Thread Scott Kitterman
Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org wrote: On May 15, 2011, at 11:57 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: http://pkgme.net/ Which is rather less complete for Python packaging than stdeb and I'd prefer we don't recommend. Perhaps, but I think it's a good project to contribute to if you want to make package

Re: pypi-install for python3?

2011-05-16 Thread Scott Kitterman
Sandro Tosi mo...@debian.org wrote: On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 16:43, Scott Kitterman deb...@kitterman.com wrote: I think it's deeply unfortunate that the pkgme authors chose duplicate something for which there is already a reasonably complete solution rather than focus on areas where

Re: pypi-install for python3?

2011-05-16 Thread Scott Kitterman
Sandro Tosi mo...@debian.org wrote: On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 16:43, Scott Kitterman deb...@kitterman.com wrote: I think it's deeply unfortunate that the pkgme authors chose duplicate something for which there is already a reasonably complete solution rather than focus on areas where

Re: X-Python3-Version if Python 3 is unsupported?

2011-05-21 Thread Scott Kitterman
Nikolaus Rath nikol...@rath.org wrote: Hello, What should I put into X-Python3-Version for a package that does not support Python 3? According to http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/python-policy/ch-module_packages.html, not providing that header would mean that the package is compatible

Re: list of package for python_support - dh_python2 ?

2011-06-12 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Sunday, June 12, 2011 10:24:51 AM Yaroslav Halchenko wrote: On Sun, 12 Jun 2011, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote: I am asking because I have a few packages which use pysupport now and it seems to work (so it is the mighty for me)... not sure if I am ready to invest time into doing a

New python-defaults upload to experimental

2011-07-06 Thread Scott Kitterman
+16,7 @@ Scott Kitterman sc...@kitterman.com - version 0.9.3.0 + version 0.9.4.0 --- @@ -94,10 +94,11 @@ A.Build Dependencies

Re: New python-defaults upload to experimental

2011-07-07 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Thursday, July 07, 2011 04:27:32 AM Piotr Ożarowski wrote: [Scott Kitterman, 2011-07-07] B.Packaging Tools - B.1. distutils - B.2. python-support - B.3. python-central - B.4. CDBS + B.1. dh_python2 and dh_python3

Re: New python-defaults upload to experimental

2011-07-07 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Thursday, July 07, 2011 08:43:29 AM Jakub Wilk wrote: * Scott Kitterman deb...@kitterman.com, 2011-07-07, 01:30: I've just uploaded 2.7.2-2 to experimental. It's mostly about dh_python2 improvements from POX, but also has some minor updates to Python Policy that I think improve

Re: New python-defaults upload to experimental

2011-07-07 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Thursday, July 07, 2011 11:23:13 AM Brian Sutherland wrote: On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 09:18:19AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: On Thursday, July 07, 2011 04:27:32 AM Piotr Ożarowski wrote: [Scott Kitterman, 2011-07-07] B.Packaging Tools - B.1

Re: Accepted python-defaults 2.7.2-3 (source all)

2011-07-10 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Sunday, July 10, 2011 06:53:34 PM Jakub Wilk wrote: * Matthias Klose d...@debian.org, 2011-07-10, 19:34: Changes: python-defaults (2.7.2-3) experimental; urgency=low . * python: Provide python profiler. * Provide a python2 symlink according to PEP 394. Excuse me, what?

Re: New python-defaults upload to experimental

2011-07-27 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Thursday, July 07, 2011 01:30:48 AM Scott Kitterman wrote: I've just uploaded 2.7.2-2 to experimental. It's mostly about dh_python2 improvements from POX, but also has some minor updates to Python Policy that I think improve the currency of it a bit. Please review the changes and I'll fix

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >