Hi Zooko,
I just implemented what I was talking about below on the van.pydeb
trunk. Running the script against unstable I get a list of 565 packages
that don't match the default mapping, I've added them to van.pydeb's
database.
The checkin is here:
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 11:59 PM, Lennart Regebrorege...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/23 Tarek Ziadé ziade.ta...@gmail.com:
So how this will look at the end ? a conversion function that can be
called when releasing
for instance ?
Something like that. There is a port.sh script that will make a
2009/7/24 Tarek Ziadé ziade.ta...@gmail.com:
I can postpone the 0.6 release for a week or so, until this is ready, so we
can
have 0.6 for Python 3.
I think we should make a 2.x only release first. The changes to
support Python 3 are small but numerous and since the test-coverage
isn't that
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Lennart Regebrorege...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/24 Tarek Ziadé ziade.ta...@gmail.com:
I can postpone the 0.6 release for a week or so, until this is ready, so we
can
have 0.6 for Python 3.
I think we should make a 2.x only release first. The changes to
On Jul 24, 2009, at 10:29 AM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
2009/7/24 Tarek Ziadé ziade.ta...@gmail.com:
I can postpone the 0.6 release for a week or so, until this is
ready, so we can
have 0.6 for Python 3.
I think we should make a 2.x only release first. The changes to
support Python 3 are
On Friday, 24 July, 2009, at 03:59PM, Leonardo Santagada
santag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 24, 2009, at 10:29 AM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
2009/7/24 Tarek Ziadé ziade.ta...@gmail.com:
I can postpone the 0.6 release for a week or so, until this is
ready, so we can
have 0.6 for Python 3.
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 4:06 PM, Ronald Oussorenronaldousso...@mac.com wrote:
I agree with Lennart that a 2.x only release would be better, especially
because it would be possible to do a 0.7 alpha/beta release short after the
stable 0.6 release.
Notice that 0.7 will rename the setuptools
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 20:42:29 -0400, David Lyon david.l...@preisshare.net
wrote:
Tarek,
Recently I suggested having setup.py implemented as
a class and not a procedure.
I posted some notes on http://wiki.python.org/moin/Distutils/Proposals
Do you have any comment?
David,
I think you
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 20:55:11 -0400, Jean-Paul Calderone
exar...@divmod.com
I think you should flesh out your proposal a bit more:
Thanks Jean-Paul, I can do that.
3) Lose the stuff about setup.cfg - where configuration data goes can
be
the same regardless of what the Python API looks
