On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> That's not what a Conflicts field is for. It's to allow a project to say
> *they don't support* installing in parallel with another package.
If that's the actual intended use case, the PEP needs some revision.
In particular, if there's a behav
On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 8:02 AM, PJ Eby wrote:
> > *) Not all packages built build on top of that system. There are rpm
> > packages provided by upstreams that users attempt (to greater and lesser
> > degrees of success) to install on SuSE, RHEL, Fedora, Mandriva, etc.
> There
> > are debs built
On Friday, December 7, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> That's not what a Conflicts field is for. It's to allow a project to say
> *they don't support* installing in parallel with another package. It doesn't
> matter why it's unsupported, it's making a conflict perceived by the project
> e
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 3:47 PM, PJ Eby wrote:
> In effect, a "conflicts" field actually *creates* conflicts and
> maintenance burdens where they did not previously exist, because even
> after the conflict no longer really existed, an automated tool would
> have prevented PyDispatch from being ins
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 9:24 PM, wrote:
> On 04:25 pm, eric.pru...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> I'm bumping this PEP again in hopes of getting some feedback.
>>
>
This is useful, indeed. ActiveState recipe for this has 10 votes, which is
high for ActiveState (and such hardcore topic FWIW).
> On Tue, S
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 01:18:40AM -0500, PJ Eby wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 1:49 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>> > On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 07:34:41PM -0500, PJ Eby wrote:
>> >> Nobody has actually proposed a better one, outside of pack
ACTIVITY SUMMARY (2012-11-30 - 2012-12-07)
Python tracker at http://bugs.python.org/
To view or respond to any of the issues listed below, click on the issue.
Do NOT respond to this message.
Issues counts and deltas:
open3816 (+24)
closed 24597 (+31)
total 28413 (+55)
Open issues wit
On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 01:18:40AM -0500, PJ Eby wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 1:49 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 07:34:41PM -0500, PJ Eby wrote:
> >> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 6:07 PM, Donald Stufft
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Nobody has actually proposed a better one, outside
