On Sat, 2009-10-03 at 22:09 +0200, yersinia wrote:
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 7:15 PM, David Malcolm dmalc...@redhat.com
wrote:
[snip]
$ rpm -qf /usr/lib/python2.*/site-packages/* | grep -v is not
owned |
SIA, this is off of topic , i am sure. BUT, it is very strange that
could
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 7:15 PM, David Malcolm dmalc...@redhat.com wrote:
Proposal: Python 3 in Fedora 13
Evolutionary, not revolutionary: build a python 3 stack
parallel-installable with the python 2 stack.
= High-level summary =
- Python 3.0 was released almost 10 months ago, on
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 19:15, David Malcolm dmalc...@redhat.com wrote:
- We have a working, valuable python 2 stack, which is used by
critical system components (yum and anaconda): we must not destabilize
the python 2 stack.
Do we have an idea how far our stack is from working on python3 ?
Le 02/10/2009 09:46, Christof Damian a écrit :
Do we have an idea how far our stack is from working on python3 ?
And how far all the rest of python packages is?
Not much, there are few external modules working though the list is
slowly growing (pyqt4, openCV etc, libxml...). Here are some
Taking a step back to look at a broader picture,
what is determined here might be helpful when migrating
other packages such as :
perl6
php6
java2 ( or whatever Sunacle calls it officially )
ruby2
Although none of those are as central to the operation
of Fedora as python, they all will suffer
Le Ven 2 octobre 2009 17:07, chasd a écrit :
java2 ( or whatever Sunacle calls it officially )
We use our own naming for this because SUN changed its mind too often on how
it should be named. So now we ignore upstream naming and use our own
consistent one.
--
Nicolas Mailhot
--
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 17:07, chasd ch...@silveroaks.com wrote:
Taking a step back to look at a broader picture,
what is determined here might be helpful when migrating
other packages such as :
perl6
php6
java2 ( or whatever Sunacle calls it officially )
ruby2
the good thing is that they
perl6
That's already a Fedora 12 feature.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Rakudo_Perl_6
--
Mathieu Bridon (bochecha)
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com wrote:
*BSD, fellow GNU/Linux distro like Debian [...] are able to ship multiples
python stacks
In Debian's case of course there are actually *two* separate Python systems
;)
http://wiki.debian.org/DebianPythonFAQ
I didn't
On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 13:15 -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
[snip]
(replying to self, with some archive links)
An earlier proposal about python 3 in Fedora is here:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-May/msg02417.html
...which was the Let's make a plan for python3.0 in Fedora
On 10/02/2009 08:48 AM, Colin Walters wrote:
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com wrote:
*BSD, fellow GNU/Linux distro like Debian [...] are able to ship multiples
python stacks
In Debian's case of course there are actually *two* separate Python systems
;)
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 1:15 PM, David Malcolm dmalc...@redhat.com wrote:
Proposal: Python 3 in Fedora 13
[snip]
- I don't want to add extra work for package maintainers: if you
maintain an SRPM of a python 2 module that's working for you, you
shouldn't feel obligated to own a separate SRPM
On 10/02/2009 02:28 PM, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
Since yum is available during build, this would work (but is fugly):
- build as normal
- push out python2 files to buildroot
- after everything else is done, yum remove python-devel yum
install python3-devel
- build python3 modules
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 8:19 PM, Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com wrote:
I brought up Debian's parallel install system before (I believe the last
time python24 python2 python3 came up) and someone did a quick anaysis
and said it wasn't a good idea.
Fair enough, just wanted to be sure it
On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 01:15:09PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
Scoping:
- this work would target Fedora 13. I'd avoid pushing it into F12
until it's proven safe to do so
I'm going to think on the overall proposal more, but I very very very much
wish this sentence said I will not push this into
On Oct 1, 2009, at 10:59, Josh Boyer jwbo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 01:15:09PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
Scoping:
- this work would target Fedora 13. I'd avoid pushing it into F12
until it's proven safe to do so
I'm going to think on the overall proposal more, but I
Once upon a time, Josh Boyer jwbo...@gmail.com said:
On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 01:15:09PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
Scoping:
- this work would target Fedora 13. I'd avoid pushing it into F12
until it's proven safe to do so
I'm going to think on the overall proposal more, but I very very
On 10/01/2009 11:11 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Oct 1, 2009, at 10:59, Josh Boyer jwbo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 01:15:09PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
Scoping:
- this work would target Fedora 13. I'd avoid pushing it into F12
until it's proven safe to do so
I'm
On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 13:07 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Josh Boyer jwbo...@gmail.com said:
On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 01:15:09PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
Scoping:
- this work would target Fedora 13. I'd avoid pushing it into F12
until it's proven safe to do so
I'm
On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 11:23 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On 10/01/2009 11:11 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Oct 1, 2009, at 10:59, Josh Boyer jwbo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 01:15:09PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
Scoping:
- this work would target Fedora 13. I'd
On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, David Malcolm wrote:
Treating it as a new language is the intent, and I'll make every effort
to keep them separated.
In theory there wouldn't be any problems. However if I screw up and
somehow cross the streams, I run the risk of breaking _lots_ of things;
yum is the
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 2:39 PM, David Malcolm dmalc...@redhat.com wrote:
I'm not volunteering to put it into F12. I think that anyone wanting to
push it into F12 needs to sign up for a lot of testing (brainstorming
some testcases: can you still compile and build external modules with
both
On 10/01/2009 10:15 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
Proposal: Python 3 in Fedora 13
Evolutionary, not revolutionary: build a python 3 stack
parallel-installable with the python 2 stack.
First: Overall +1.
Note: liberally snipped, throughout.
= Proposal =
Where I would draw the line is on
Jesse Keating wrote:
Ditto. This is not something you would push as an update to a released
product.
I don't see why a parallel-installable python3/python3000 would cause any
problems as an update.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 23:21 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
Ditto. This is not something you would push as an update to a released
product.
I don't see why a parallel-installable python3/python3000 would cause any
problems as an update.
Kevin Kofler
The
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at said:
Jesse Keating wrote:
Ditto. This is not something you would push as an update to a released
product.
I don't see why a parallel-installable python3/python3000 would cause any
problems as an update.
Are you able to guarantee
On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 12:17 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On 10/01/2009 10:15 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
Proposal: Python 3 in Fedora 13
Evolutionary, not revolutionary: build a python 3 stack
parallel-installable with the python 2 stack.
First: Overall +1.
Note: liberally
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
David Malcolm wrote:
Naming convention proposal:
How does this sound:
- an rpm with a python- prefix means a python 2 rpm, of
the
default python 2 minor version (for Fedora this will be the
most
recent stable upstream minor release, for
On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 19:12 -0400, Ben Boeckel wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
David Malcolm wrote:
Naming convention proposal:
How does this sound:
- an rpm with a python- prefix means a python 2 rpm, of
the
default python 2 minor version (for Fedora this
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
David Malcolm wrote:
On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 19:12 -0400, Ben Boeckel wrote:
Could we do something similar to what qt and kdelibs packages
have done? While qt3 was default, the 'qt' package points to
qt3
and qt4 is an entirely separate package.
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see any way around this atm but it is something to think about
possibilities more.
One way around this that I use at $DAYJOB (to minimize exposure of a
PHP enabled webserver, thus minimizing attack surface, and
31 matches
Mail list logo
