Re: Bug#791635 python-policy: Please require namespacing source python module packages

Hi Scott (2023.01.29_01:34:54_+) > It'd be much simpler just to drop DPT or myself from uploaders and ignore > this, so that's probably the path I would take. The Debian Python Policy is independent of DPT. So, if adopted, that wouldn't help much... :) > Regardless, I do

Re: Bug#791635 python-policy: Please require namespacing source python module packages

package being removed from >sid, reopening and reassigning where python-policy seems to be located >now. > >On Tue, 2022-12-27 at 23:29:30 +, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: >> Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 03:11:06 +0200 >> From: Guillem Jover >> To: sub...@bugs.d

Re: Bug#791635 python-policy: Please require namespacing source python module packages

Control: reopen -1 Control: reassign -1 python3 [ Sorry, resending, as the bug was archived so it ignored all the control commands. ] This got closed due to the python-defaults package being removed from sid, reopening and reassigning where python-policy seems to be located now. On Tue, 2022

Python policy about /usr/lib/pythonXY.zip

The Python Policy document [1] states: > For all supported Debian releases, sys.path does not include a > /usr/lib/pythonXY.zip entry. I may not understand the sentence, or something, because it looks wrong to me as pythonXY looks to be in sys.path, at least on my Debian bookworm:

Re: Wiki: Debian Python Policy docu not on team site

Hi, I added in the Wiki [0], the link to the python3-defaults docs and policy [1]. Please review it. [0] https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/PythonTeam#preview [1] https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/python-policy/ Cheers Emmanuel

Re: Wiki: Debian Python Policy docu not on team site

Hi! On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 7:43 AM wrote: > Hello, > > this is about the wiki page of that team. > https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/PythonTeam > > I accidentally found the "Debian Python Policy documentation". > https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/python-pol

Wiki: Debian Python Policy docu not on team site

Hello, this is about the wiki page of that team. https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/PythonTeam I accidentally found the "Debian Python Policy documentation". https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/python-policy/ Looks nice and very important for new team members. Maybe it

Re: Ported Python Policy to Sphinx

Hi Dmitry (2021.02.26_19:10:42_+) > On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 06:09:50PM +, Stefano Rivera wrote: > > Hi Dmitry (2021.02.26_08:31:11_+) > > > You can use :samp:`python3.{Y}`. See: > > > > Thanks for the hint. Glad I asked :) > > > > Switched to that, and re-rendered. > > Small addition

Re: Ported Python Policy to Sphinx

On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 06:09:50PM +, Stefano Rivera wrote: > Hi Dmitry (2021.02.26_08:31:11_+) > > You can use :samp:`python3.{Y}`. See: > > Thanks for the hint. Glad I asked :) > > Switched to that, and re-rendered. Small addition (sorry that I did not mention it earlier): when

Re: Ported Python Policy to Sphinx

Hi Dmitry (2021.02.26_08:31:11_+) > You can use :samp:`python3.{Y}`. See: Thanks for the hint. Glad I asked :) Switched to that, and re-rendered. SR -- Stefano Rivera http://tumbleweed.org.za/ +1 415 683 3272

Re: Ported Python Policy to Sphinx

Hi Stefano! On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 10:58:41PM +, Stefano Rivera wrote: > Hacking on the docbook Python Policy is no fun. > > I ported the current version to sphinx. > > MR: https://salsa.debian.org/cpython-team/python3-defaults/-/merge_requests/10 > > Render: http

Ported Python Policy to Sphinx

Hacking on the docbook Python Policy is no fun. I ported the current version to sphinx. MR: https://salsa.debian.org/cpython-team/python3-defaults/-/merge_requests/10 Render: https://people.debian.org/~stefanor/python-policy-sphinx/ I'd appreciate it if anyone who has the time would give

Re: Questions around the python-policy document

Hi Fabrice, Fabrice BAUZAC-STEHLY writes: > Hello Debian-Python, > > I have a few questions regarding the Python Policy: > https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/python-policy/ > > - Is there a Debian package for reading it offline? (apparently not) > > - Who

Questions around the python-policy document

Hello Debian-Python, I have a few questions regarding the Python Policy: https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/python-policy/ - Is there a Debian package for reading it offline? (apparently not) - Who maintains this document: is it the Policy team, the Python team? - Where

Re: python-policy source

Hi Geert! On Sun, Jul 05, 2020 at 07:05:28PM +0200, Geert Stappers wrote: > Hi, > > Where to find the source of python-policy? I believe it is here: https://salsa.debian.org/cpython-team/python3-defaults/-/blob/master/debian/python-policy.dbk -- Dmitry Shachnev signature.asc Descrip

python-policy source

Hi, Where to find the source of python-policy? It it not (yet?) at Salsa https://salsa.debian.org/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93=false=_ref==python-policy https://salsa.debian.org/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93=false=_ref==packaging-manuals > > I have reread [3] https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-m

Re: Bug#943666: python3: Update Python Policy for removal of the Python 2 stack

Le mer. 6 nov. 2019 à 23:49, Matthias Klose a écrit : > > On 06.11.19 22:04, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: > > Brian May writes: > >> Or maybe even expand as two bullet points: > >> > >> - Do not remove python-foo-doc. > >> - Do not rename it to python3-foo-doc. > >> > >> I think this makes it very

Re: Bug#943666: python3: Update Python Policy for removal of the Python 2 stack

On 06.11.19 22:04, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: Brian May writes: Stéphane Blondon writes: Perhaps there is a doubt how to read it? - do not (remove python-foo-doc or rename it to python3-foo-doc) - (do not remove python-foo-doc) or (rename it to python3-foo-doc) Would it be better if we

Re: Bug#943666: python3: Update Python Policy for removal of the Python 2 stack

Brian May writes: > Stéphane Blondon writes: > >> Perhaps there is a doubt how to read it? >> - do not (remove python-foo-doc or rename it to python3-foo-doc) >> - (do not remove python-foo-doc) or (rename it to python3-foo-doc) >> >> Would it be better if we remove the indentation and use this

Re: Bug#943666: python3: Update Python Policy for removal of the Python 2 stack

Stéphane Blondon writes: > Perhaps there is a doubt how to read it? > - do not (remove python-foo-doc or rename it to python3-foo-doc) > - (do not remove python-foo-doc) or (rename it to python3-foo-doc) > > Would it be better if we remove the indentation and use this sentence(?): > if

Re: Bug#943666: python3: Update Python Policy for removal of the Python 2 stack

On 03.11.19 15:09, Neil Williams wrote: On Sun, 3 Nov 2019 15:00:17 +0100 Matthias Klose wrote: [discussing this outside the bug report on the ML] On 03.11.19 14:39, Neil Williams wrote: Actually, that's a good catch. I was mixing up the defaults package with the general advice on python3

Re: Bug#943666: python3: Update Python Policy for removal of the Python 2 stack

On Sun, 3 Nov 2019 15:00:17 +0100 Matthias Klose wrote: > [discussing this outside the bug report on the ML] > > On 03.11.19 14:39, Neil Williams wrote: > > Actually, that's a good catch. I was mixing up the defaults package > > with the general advice on python3 migration to not remove > >

Re: Bug#943666: python3: Update Python Policy for removal of the Python 2 stack

[discussing this outside the bug report on the ML] On 03.11.19 14:39, Neil Williams wrote: Actually, that's a good catch. I was mixing up the defaults package with the general advice on python3 migration to not remove python-foo-doc just to rename it to python3-foo-doc. where did you read

Bug#943666: python3: Update Python Policy for removal of the Python 2 stack

Package: python3 Version: 3.7.5-1 Severity: normal As discussed on IRC and alongside the post to debian-devel-announce, please review and include this amendment to the Debian Python Policy to cover the removal of the Python 2 stack as outlined at https://wiki.debian.org/Python/2Removal https

Re: Remove wiki version of the python policy?

https://wiki.debian.org/Python/Policy has been updated/cleaned up. Sorry it took so long. Joseph On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 10:50 PM, Ben Finney <bign...@debian.org> wrote: > Joseph Herlant <herla...@gmail.com> writes: > >> Hi, >> >> On Mon, May 14, 2018, 10:

Re: Remove wiki version of the python policy?

Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com> writes: > On Monday, May 14, 2018 10:55:36 AM Joseph Herlant wrote: > > Hi guys, > > > > I noticed that https://wiki.debian.org/Python/Policy is full of > > obsolete ways to do. > > Is it worth updatin

Re: Remove wiki version of the python policy?

On Monday, May 14, 2018 10:55:36 AM Joseph Herlant wrote: > Hi guys, > > I noticed that https://wiki.debian.org/Python/Policy is full of > obsolete ways to do. > Is it worth updating it or should I just remove everything there and > redirect to https://www.debian.org/doc/packag

Remove wiki version of the python policy?

Hi guys, I noticed that https://wiki.debian.org/Python/Policy is full of obsolete ways to do. Is it worth updating it or should I just remove everything there and redirect to https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/python-policy/ ? It's ranked 3rd in Google when looking for "Debian P

Re: Python Policy: Things to consider for Stretch

Scott Kitterman writes: > On Tuesday, February 02, 2016 06:44:57 AM Ben Finney wrote: > > Ben Finney writes: > > > * Address all the language around Python 2 versus Python 3 versus > > > Python general, and re-order or re-word to focus

Re: Python Policy: Things to consider for Stretch

On Feb 16, 2016, at 11:54 AM, Paul Wise wrote: >I always thought it strange to put site- in /usr/local since >/usr/local already implies site/system-wide packages. Same for dist- >since /usr already implies distribution packages. For as long as I can remember, a from-source 'configure && make &&

Re: Python Policy: Things to consider for Stretch

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:42 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > I don't remember exactly why we called it 'site-packages' ... Thanks for the history :) I always thought it strange to put site- in /usr/local since /usr/local already implies site/system-wide packages. Same for dist- since /usr already

Re: Python Policy: Things to consider for Stretch

On Feb 15, 2016, at 07:42 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: >I don't remember exactly why we called it 'site-packages', but I believe it >was an evolution from the earlier ni.py module, which was where dotted module >paths first showed up in Python. And which had a 'site-python' directory, which was kept

Re: Python Policy: Things to consider for Stretch

on3 + will represent the current default Debian Python 3 version; the + binary package python will represent the + current default Debian Python 2 version. As far as is reasonable, + Python 3 and Python 2 should be treated as separate runtime + systems with minimal interdependencies.

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: Python Policy: Things to consider for Stretch

Scott Kitterman writes: > 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. Thank you, Scott! I'll

Re: Python Policy: Things to consider for Stretch

Scott Kitterman writes: > I should be able to get it reviewed and merged no later than Saturday > (probably Friday). Much appreciated, thanks for the response. -- \“When I was a baby I kept a diary. Recently I was re-reading | `\ it, it said ‘Day 1: Still

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

Hi Ben, 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 tidy it up for consistency, source > style, markup, and language style. This should not change the meaning > of anything, but will

Re: Python Policy: Things to consider for Stretch

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 tidy it up for consistency, > > source style, markup, and language style. This should not

Re: Python Policy: Things to consider for Stretch

hints to match Debian Policy text style. 411: Scott Kitterman 2016-01-24 Python policy updates (draft) for Stretch DO NOT UPLOAD YET:wq # Bazaar merge directive format 2 (Bazaar 0.90) # revision_id: ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au-20160126051103-\ # 3zbuoy0u0vp14w5d # target_branch: bzr+ssh://bz

Re: Python Policy: Things to consider for Stretch

Ben Finney writes: > I'm planning to provide changes in two bundles: > > * Go through the whole document and tidy it up for consistency, source > style, markup, and language style. This should not change the meaning > of anything, but will change the wording of

Re: Python Policy: Things to consider for Stretch

Scott Kitterman writes: > On Sunday, January 24, 2016 04:58:26 PM Ben Finney wrote: > > Found it; the source document is ‘python-policy.sgml’ in the source > > VCS for ‘python3’. Currently that's a Bazaar repository at > >

Re: Python Policy: Things to consider for Stretch

On January 24, 2016 11:59:14 PM EST, Ben Finney wrote: >Scott Kitterman writes: > >> On Sunday, January 24, 2016 04:58:26 PM Ben Finney wrote: >> > Found it; the source document is ‘python-policy.sgml’ in the source >> > VCS for ‘python3’.

Re: Python Policy: Things to consider for Stretch

Thanks for taking this on Ben, On Jan 24, 2016, at 04:33 PM, Ben Finney wrote: >I think you're right that this needs a general clean-up through the >policy document, to consistently use: > >* “python2” to refer to that command only; > >* “python3” to refer to that command only; > >* “python” to

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: 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 > >insane was a horrible

Re: Python Policy: Things to consider for Stretch

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

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

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 the only places this comes up. Yes, that's likely because when the Debian Python polic

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

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 categories: […] This is great to see, thank you Scott. Where is the Git (I assu

Re: Python Policy: Things to consider for Stretch

e only places this comes up. > > Yes, that's likely because when the Debian Python policy was initially > drafted, there was no Python 3 anywhere close to entering Debian. So > “Python” and “Python 2” were less ambiguously conflated at that time. > > Now that Python 2 and Python 3

Re: Python Policy: Things to consider for Stretch

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

Re: Python Policy: Things to consider for Stretch

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, apologies for the lack of good quoting, or if I've read th

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: Python Policy

On Oct 22, 2015, at 11:14 AM, IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU) wrote: >thanks for gender neutral wording. however, you missed one "his" in the >first sentence (probably more in other paragraphs). Got it, thanks. -Barry pgpm4DkniheG1.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Python Policy

On Oct 22, 2015, at 11:11 AM, IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU) wrote: >something else i wonder whether we shouldn't drop it, as i don't quite >understand why it has to be in the policy. > >i *think* it's supposed to urge DDs into becoming team members, even though >they can ("are able to") already

Re: Python Policy

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 2015-10-20 22:53, Barry Warsaw wrote: > +Any·Debian·developer·who·wishes·to·integrate·his·packages·in·the·team ·can·do > > +so·without·requesting·access·(as·the·repository·is·writable·by·all·DD). ·If·one >

Re: Python Policy

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 2015-10-20 22:53, Barry Warsaw wrote: > +Any·Debian·developer·who·wishes·to·integrate·his·packages·in·the·team ·can·do > > +so·without·requesting·access·(as·the·repository·is·writable·by·all·DD). ·If·one >

Re: Python Policy

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 2015-10-21 15:54, Barry Warsaw wrote: > Hopefully, the latest changes (see previous follow up) are both > more concise and coherent. maybe. i have to admit i'm not totally used to an reviewing git patches per mailinglists, and in this case i

PyPI wheels (was Re: Python Policy)

On Oct 21, 2015, at 08:47 PM, Brian May wrote: >in one case this is because upstream have only supplied a *.whl >file on Pypi. I'm *really* hoping that the PyPA will prohibit binary wheel-only uploads. There is talk about source wheels, and if that happens we'll probably have to adjust our tools

Re: PyPI wheels (was Re: Python Policy)

On 2015-10-21 09:31:04 -0500 (-0500), Ian Cordasco wrote: > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > > On Oct 21, 2015, at 08:47 PM, Brian May wrote: > > > >>in one case this is because upstream have only supplied a *.whl > >>file on Pypi. > > > > I'm *really*

Re: PyPI wheels (was Re: Python Policy)

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Oct 21, 2015, at 08:47 PM, Brian May wrote: > >>in one case this is because upstream have only supplied a *.whl >>file on Pypi. > > I'm *really* hoping that the PyPA will prohibit binary wheel-only uploads. I'm not sure

Re: Python Policy

Vincent Bernat writes: > You should remove the reference to Pypi since tarballs can also be taken > From GitHub (when upstream doesn't want to ship everything, like tests, > in Pypi tarballs or doesn't even release tarballs on Pypi): Have filled upstream bugs on issues that

Re: Python Policy

❦ 20 octobre 2015 20:52 -0400, Barry Warsaw  : >>I'd remove this paragraph. Releases can be made via `git archive` and I did >>that many times (assuming pristine-tar will still keep needed data to >>regenerate exact same tarball). If you meant that we don't want to keep

Re: Python Policy

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 2015-10-21 02:17, Ben Finney wrote: > "IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU)" writes: > >> thanks a lot for preparing all this. >> >> On 10/20/2015 10:53 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: >>> +DPMT requires upstream tarballs; releases

Re: Python Policy

Thanks for the feedback Piotr. I've made all the changes you suggest, except one. I'll discuss that below and include an updated diff against master. On Oct 19, 2015, at 11:26 PM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: >I'm against this change. If we want all team packages to follow some >rules, these rules

Re: Python Policy

On Oct 20, 2015, at 12:37 AM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: >should we also document that we're not OpenStack Packaging Team? Or zope-packaging? . Agreed that there are different teams here, but I am hoping that we can do some consolidation. E.g. I posted on the zope list that I'd like to pull those

Re: Python Policy

[Barry Warsaw, 2015-10-20] > Here's my concern: I don't want too much duplication of information in > multiple locations. That's a sure recipe for bitrot, and I know no one wants > to have to edit information in more than one place. > > Until now, the wiki has been the more convenient place to

Re: Python Policy

Latest diff against master. If you're happy with this, I'll merge to master, update the web page, and trim the wiki. Cheers, -Barry diff --git a/policy.rst b/policy.rst index c09f03a..123792c 100644 --- a/policy.rst +++ b/policy.rst @@ -1,39 +1,44 @@ - -

Re: Python Policy

thanks a lot for preparing all this. On 10/20/2015 10:53 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > +DPMT requires upstream tarballs; releases cannot be made from upstream git > +repositories directly. This is because PyPI contains upstream tarballs, and > +tarballs are what we upload to the Debian archive. i

Re: Python Policy

On Oct 20, 2015, at 05:16 PM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: >I will leave this team the moment I have to read README.sources each day when >I sponsor a package. Nobody wants that! (either you leaving or having to read README.source for every package). Cheers, -Barry

Re: Python Policy

[Barry Warsaw, 2015-10-20] > Latest diff against master. If you're happy with this, I'll merge to master, > update the web page, and trim the wiki. I have few comments, but even if I didn't, please wait at least until after the weekend (or better: 7 days) so that others have time to review it

Re: Python Policy

[Barry Warsaw, 2015-10-20] > On Oct 19, 2015, at 09:04 PM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: > > >Debian Python Policy¹ is something every single packages that extends > >Python should follow. There are many teams (more than 4) each of them > >can have their own

Re: Python Policy

[Barry Warsaw, 2015-10-20] > I also think it would be fine to *eventually* merge the two teams. I suspect > there isn't really much benefit to keeping them separate and a lot of > unnecessary cost. Is there anybody on PAPT who doesn't want to be on DPMT? /me puts his PAPT admin hat on WHAT?

Re: Python Policy

On Oct 21, 2015, at 11:17 AM, Ben Finney wrote: >On the contrary, I think the Policy document should document the >rationale for contingent decisions like this. When it is inevitably >discussed again in the future, it is always better to know the intent of >the authors. +1 Cheers, -Barry

Re: Python Policy

On Oct 20, 2015, at 11:30 PM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: >I have few comments, but even if I didn't, please wait at least until after >the weekend (or better: 7 days) so that others have time to review it and >comment / propose changes. Fair enough. Of course, it's in a vcs so it's easy to change!

Re: Python Policy

"IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU)" writes: > thanks a lot for preparing all this. > > On 10/20/2015 10:53 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > > +DPMT requires upstream tarballs; releases cannot be made from upstream git > > +repositories directly. This is because PyPI contains

Re: Python Policy

| diff --git a/policy.rst b/policy.rst | index c09f03a..9a9abb4 100644 | --- a/policy.rst | +++ b/policy.rst | @@ -1,20 +1,19 @@ | - | - Python Modules Packaging Team - Policy | - |

Python Policy

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 * https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/python-policy/ which comes from

Re: Python Policy

[Barry Warsaw, 2015-10-19] > So we currently have several places where we have team policy described. no. Debian Python Policy¹ is something every single packages that extends Python should follow. There are many teams (more than 4) each of them can have their own policy that extends

Re: Python Policy

an.org/Teams/PythonModulesTeam > >* https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/python-policy/ >which comes from the python-defaults (*not* python3-defaults!) in the >bzr > repo at > http://alioth.debian.org/anonscm/bzr/pkg-python/python-defaults-debian > >* "PMPT&quo

Re: Python Policy

[Piotr Ożarowski, 2015-10-19] > DPMT and PAPT are two different things ups, PMPT != PAPT :) anyway, there are only documents each DPMT should know: * https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/python-policy/ * https://python-modules.alioth.debian.org/policy.html everything else can h

Re: Python Policy

Piotr Ożarowski writes: > [Piotr Ożarowski, 2015-10-19] > > DPMT and PAPT are two different things > > ups, PMPT != PAPT :) So which of the following are redundant, and which names are canonical? * Debian Python Modules Team * Python Module Packaging Team * Debian Python

Re: Python Policy

[Ben Finney, 2015-10-19] > So which of the following are redundant, and which names are canonical? > > * Debian Python Modules Team > * Python Module Packaging Team these two are the same thing > * Debian Python Maintainers Team this doesn't exist AFAIK > For symmetry with “Python Application

Re: Python Policy

Barry Warsaw writes: > * "PMPT" policy > http://python-modules.alioth.debian.org/ > git+ssh://git.debian.org/git/python-modules/tools/python-modules.git Is policy.rst automatically kept in sync somehow in between python-modules.git and

Re: Python Policy

[Brian May, 2015-10-20] > Are DAPT and PAPT the same thing? no such thing as DAPT > This information should be documented somewhere. should we also document that we're not OpenStack Packaging Team? > In my words, for Debian project there is a wiki and a policy. For each > team there is a wiki

Re: Python Policy

not a place to store official documents. > >> * Another wiki page: >> https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/PythonModulesTeam > > this is wiki page, not a policy > >> * https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/python-policy/ >> which comes from the python-de

Typo in Python Policy

Near the start of Chapter 1, Section 1.1: implmentation → implementation Checked against 0.9.4.2. -- http://rrt.sc3d.org

Re: Typo in Python Policy

On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 11:05:30 PM Reuben Thomas wrote: Near the start of Chapter 1, Section 1.1: implmentation → implementation Checked against 0.9.4.2. Fixed in the VCS for the next python-defaults upload. Thanks, Scott K -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to

Re: RFC: Adding discussion about required versions to Python policy

, then you still need to specify (in this example) X-Python3-Version. This is true, but I'm not sure why Python Policy needs to talk about this. If it does, then probably appendix B would be the correct place. Or a footnote. In general, how X(S)P(3)V is translated to dependency on python(3

Re: RFC: Adding discussion about required versions to Python policy

* Scott Kitterman deb...@kitterman.com, 2012-03-19, 09:29: The generated minumum dependency may be different than the lowest version currently supported. In such cases, X-Python-Version must still be specified if the generated dependency is not sufficient. [...] I think something like my first

RFC: Clarifying version specific depends/provides in Python policy

I've attached a patch (it's built on the last one I sent) that attempts to clarify policy around packages that only work with specific versions of Python/Python3. Here's what I attempted to do: - Changed should support the default version to should support all supported versions. - Dropped

RFC: Adding discussion about required versions to Python policy

3 3.2 need this specifed in X-Python3-Version. I took a stab at adding some words to the Python policy to explain this. Comments please (diff attached). Scott K--- python-policy.txt 2012-03-16 23:29:14.384401914 -0400 +++ python-policy.new.txt 2012-03-16 23:46:06.460372010 -0400 @@ -398,16

Re: Python Policy Updates

* Stefano Rivera stefa...@debian.org, 2011-03-24, 15:35: 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. Correctly using python Provides is expensive. Here's why: “Provides:

Re: Python Policy Updates

Hi Jakub (2011.03.24_18:48:04_+0200) But you can claim that only if the package depends on the python2.X versions of all other modules it requires, even if some of them are arch:all! (The policy doesn't explain this...) It does say: | Packaged modules available for one particular version of

Re: Python Policy Updates

Hi Scott (2011.03.19_05:52:49_+0200) What else needs doing? I suggest making it clearer in the policy that byte-compilation etc. are best taken care of by helpers. The policy *is* probably the first place that someone looking to create a Python module/app package will look. There are a few

Re: Python Policy Updates

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.

Re: Python Policy Updates

Hi Scott (2011.03.24_15:45:36_+0200) I think once we get to pyhton2.7 as the only supported python, it won't matter. As long as we handle rebuilds after every transition, it already shouldn't matter (in Python 2 and 3). With dh_python2 we have the same rebuild requirements, but don't suggest

Python Policy Updates

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

  1   2   3   4   >