python-cherrypy_2.3.0-4_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
python-cherrypy_2.3.0-4.dsc
python-cherrypy_2.3.0-4.diff.gz
python-cherrypy_2.3.0-4_all.deb
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon (running on host franck.debian.org)
Accepted:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Format: 1.8
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 14:30:35 -0200
Source: nose
Binary: python-nose-doc python-nose python3-nose
Architecture: source all
Version: 1.3.4-2
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Debian Python Modules Team
Accepted:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Format: 1.8
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 14:32:24 -0200
Source: python-cherrypy
Binary: python-cherrypy
Architecture: source all
Version: 2.3.0-4
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Debian Python Modules Team
cherrypy3_3.5.0-2_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
cherrypy3_3.5.0-2.dsc
cherrypy3_3.5.0-2.debian.tar.xz
python-cherrypy3_3.5.0-2_all.deb
python3-cherrypy3_3.5.0-2_all.deb
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon (running on host
Accepted:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Format: 1.8
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 14:24:00 -0200
Source: cherrypy3
Binary: python-cherrypy3 python3-cherrypy3
Architecture: source all
Version: 3.5.0-2
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Debian Python Modules Team
Processing control commands:
notforwarded -1
Bug #711964 [python2.7] python2.7: running 'pydoc numpy' causes segmentation
fault in some cases
Ignoring request to change the forwarded-to-address of bug#711964 to the same
value
reassign -1 python-numpy
Bug #711964 [python2.7] python2.7: running
control: reassign -1 python2.7
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Matthias Klose d...@debian.org wrote:
Control: notforwarded -1
Control: reassign -1 python-numpy
most likely an issue with python-numpy itself.
then please check *before* reassigning, thanks
Regards,
Sandro
Processing control commands:
reassign -1 python2.7
Bug #711964 [python-numpy] python2.7: running 'pydoc numpy' causes segmentation
fault in some cases
Bug reassigned from package 'python-numpy' to 'python2.7'.
Ignoring request to alter found versions of bug #711964 to the same values
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
tag 771713 + pending
Bug #771713 [python3-pyqt5.qtsvg-dbg] python3-pyqt5.qtsvg-dbg: Error in the
package description
Added tag(s) pending.
thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
771713:
Package: python-pip
Version: 1.5.6-3
Severity: serious
Tags: sid jessie
pip currently silently removes/updates system provided python packages when used
on the system python. This is only seen when a user calls pip with
administrator rights, but it makes debian python packages somehow
Quoting Matthias Klose d...@debian.org:
For jessie I suggest to just disable pip when used on the system
python, unless a new option
--yes-i-want-to-screw-up-my-system-python is given.
How about disabling pip for uid 0 altogether?
___
I'd very much prefer it if you didn't do this. This *is* going to break things
for people and it's going to cause a bunch of confusion.
---
Donald Stufft
PGP: 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
___
Python-modules-team mailing list
On 12/02/2014 11:51 AM, Donald Stufft wrote:
I'd very much prefer it if you didn't do this. This *is* going to break things
for people and it's going to cause a bunch of confusion.
It's not clear to me which side you're arguing for. can you clarify
which action is going to break things for
python-cachetools_0.7.0-1_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
python-cachetools_0.7.0-1.dsc
python-cachetools_0.7.0.orig.tar.gz
python-cachetools_0.7.0-1.debian.tar.xz
python-cachetools_0.7.0-1_all.deb
python3-cachetools_0.7.0-1_all.deb
Greetings,
binary:python-cachetools is NEW.
binary:python3-cachetools is NEW.
source:python-cachetools is NEW.
Your package has been put into the NEW queue, which requires manual action
from the ftpteam to process. The upload was otherwise valid (it had a good
OpenPGP signature and file hashes are valid),
On Dec 2, 2014, at 12:25 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor d...@fifthhorseman.net
wrote:
On 12/02/2014 11:51 AM, Donald Stufft wrote:
I'd very much prefer it if you didn't do this. This *is* going to break
things
for people and it's going to cause a bunch of confusion.
It's not clear to me
On Tuesday, December 02, 2014 12:37:40 PM Donald Stufft wrote:
On Dec 2, 2014, at 12:25 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor d...@fifthhorseman.net
wrote:
On 12/02/2014 11:51 AM, Donald Stufft wrote:
I'd very much prefer it if you didn't do this. This *is* going to break
things for people and it's
I'm on my phone so forgive my formatting.
4, 3, 2 I think in order of best to worst in my opinion.
I have another question. If we fix this in the upcoming pip 6 release what is
the chances of getting an exception for pip 6 in the freeze? If I can solve the
problem in pip proper and keep the
On Tuesday, December 02, 2014 04:15:05 PM Donald Stufft wrote:
...
I have another question. If we fix this in the upcoming pip 6 release what
is the chances of getting an exception for pip 6 in the freeze? If I can
solve the problem in pip proper and keep the delta between different
platforms
On Tuesday, December 02, 2014 04:54:37 PM Donald Stufft wrote:
On Dec 2, 2014, at 4:47 PM, Scott Kitterman deb...@kitterman.com wrote:
On Tuesday, December 02, 2014 04:15:05 PM Donald Stufft wrote:
...
I have another question. If we fix this in the upcoming pip 6 release
what
is
On Dec 2, 2014, at 5:03 PM, Scott Kitterman deb...@kitterman.com wrote:
On Tuesday, December 02, 2014 04:54:37 PM Donald Stufft wrote:
On Dec 2, 2014, at 4:47 PM, Scott Kitterman deb...@kitterman.com wrote:
On Tuesday, December 02, 2014 04:15:05 PM Donald Stufft wrote:
...
I have
On Tuesday, December 02, 2014 05:17:48 PM Donald Stufft wrote:
On Dec 2, 2014, at 5:03 PM, Scott Kitterman deb...@kitterman.com wrote:
On Tuesday, December 02, 2014 04:54:37 PM Donald Stufft wrote:
On Dec 2, 2014, at 4:47 PM, Scott Kitterman deb...@kitterman.com
wrote:
On Tuesday,
On Dec 2, 2014, at 6:32 PM, Scott Kitterman deb...@kitterman.com wrote:
Assuming the maintainer doesn't decide to downgrade the bug (which I think is
unlikely and a number of people would object to, so I think we can ignore it
as a possibility), the decision to ignore the bug for Jessie
Click here for the web version of this message
On Tuesday, December 02, 2014 19:28:20 Donald Stufft wrote:
On Dec 2, 2014, at 6:32 PM, Scott Kitterman deb...@kitterman.com wrote:
Assuming the maintainer doesn't decide to downgrade the bug (which I think
is unlikely and a number of people would object to, so I think we can
ignore it
On 12/02/2014 10:38 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Tuesday, December 02, 2014 19:28:20 Donald Stufft wrote:
So what if Debian just patched python-pip so that it doesn’t remove the
files from /usr/lib (but it would remove files from /usr/local etc). This
would have the effect of pip not touching
26 matches
Mail list logo
