On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 11:21:21AM -0600, Adam Olsen wrote:
> This would complicate the work of various packaging systems.
You're not getting it. The tarball that we distribute as a Python
release would look basically like it does now (i.e. it would include
things like the "email" package). I ca
On 8/26/07, Neil Schemenauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Aahz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > -0 on the idea of making "batteries included" include PyPI packages.
> > Anything part of "batteries included" IMO should just be part of the
> > standard install.
>
> I think you misunderstand the proposa
On Sun, Aug 26, 2007, Neil Schemenauer wrote:
> Aahz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> -0 on the idea of making "batteries included" include PyPI packages.
>> Anything part of "batteries included" IMO should just be part of the
>> standard install.
>
> I think you misunderstand the proposal. The "
Aahz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -0 on the idea of making "batteries included" include PyPI packages.
> Anything part of "batteries included" IMO should just be part of the
> standard install.
I think you misunderstand the proposal. The "batteries" would be
included as part of the final Python r
On 8/26/07, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Another possibility (which I personally favor) is to leave the email
> package in a1 as flawed as it is, but to disable the tests. It's an /
> alpha/ for gosh sakes, so maybe leaving it in and partly broken will
> help rustle up some volunteers
On Sun, Aug 26, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> aahz> Please don't interpret a missing chorus of opposition as support.
> aahz> I'm only -0, but I definitely am negative on the idea based on my
> aahz> guess about the likelihood of problems.
>
> -0 on the idea of more batteries or
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Aug 26, 2007, at 12:10 AM, Neil Schemenauer wrote:
> Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I don't like the former, but the latter is intriguing. If we could
>> host large packages (e.g., email, sqlite, ctypes, etc.) on python.org
>> by provi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Aug 25, 2007, at 7:00 PM, Bill Janssen wrote:
>> FWIW, I'm very much against moving email out of the core. This has
>> been discussed a number of times before, and as far as I am aware, no
>> conclusion reached. However, the "batteries included" ap
aahz> Please don't interpret a missing chorus of opposition as support.
aahz> I'm only -0, but I definitely am negative on the idea based on my
aahz> guess about the likelihood of problems.
-0 on the idea of more batteries or fewer batteries?
Skip
On Sun, Aug 26, 2007, Neil Schemenauer wrote:
> Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> I don't like the former, but the latter is intriguing. If we could
>> host large packages (e.g., email, sqlite, ctypes, etc.) on python.org
>> by providing tracker, svn, and web space they could be develo
Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't like the former, but the latter is intriguing. If we could
> host large packages (e.g., email, sqlite, ctypes, etc.) on python.org
> by providing tracker, svn, and web space they could be developed and
> released on their own schedule. Then the Py
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Aug 25, 2007, at 7:00 PM, Bill Janssen wrote:
>> FWIW, I'm very much against moving email out of the core. This has
>> been discussed a number of times before, and as far as I am aware, no
>> conclusion reached. However, the "batteries included" ap
On 8/25/07, Bill Janssen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > FWIW, I'm very much against moving email out of the core. This has
> > been discussed a number of times before, and as far as I am aware, no
> > conclusion reached. However, the "batteries included" approach of
> > Python is a huge benefit for
> FWIW, I'm very much against moving email out of the core. This has
> been discussed a number of times before, and as far as I am aware, no
> conclusion reached. However, the "batteries included" approach of
> Python is a huge benefit for me.
I agree. But if the current code doesn't work with 3K
On 25/08/07, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/25/07, Fred Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Aug 25, 2007, at 9:36 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > > FYI, I'm removing the email package from the py3k branch for now.
> > > If/when Barry has a working version we'll add it back. Give
On Sat, Aug 25, 2007 at 03:00:15PM -0700, Brett Cannon wrote:
> On 8/25/07, Fred Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Alternately, we could move toward separate libraries for such
> > components; this allows separate packages to have separate
> > maintenance cycles, and makes it easier for applicat
On 8/25/07, Fred Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Aug 25, 2007, at 9:36 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > FYI, I'm removing the email package from the py3k branch for now.
> > If/when Barry has a working version we'll add it back. Given that it's
> > so close to the release I'd rather release wi
Works for me. Barry?
On 8/25/07, Fred Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Aug 25, 2007, at 9:36 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > FYI, I'm removing the email package from the py3k branch for now.
> > If/when Barry has a working version we'll add it back. Given that it's
> > so close to the release
On Aug 25, 2007, at 9:36 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> FYI, I'm removing the email package from the py3k branch for now.
> If/when Barry has a working version we'll add it back. Given that it's
> so close to the release I'd rather release without the email package
> than with a broken one. If Barry
FYI, I'm removing the email package from the py3k branch for now.
If/when Barry has a working version we'll add it back. Given that it's
so close to the release I'd rather release without the email package
than with a broken one. If Barry finishes it after the a1 release,
people who need it can alw
20 matches
Mail list logo
