On Fri, Sep 07, 2001 at 10:00:26AM -0500, Ben Burton wrote:
|
| > The real problem is making assumptions about what /usr/bin/python is
| > beyond what the RefMan says. The same sort of problem occurs if a
| > script writer assumes /bin/sh is bash and uses bash-isms rather than
| > sticking to the
> The real problem is making assumptions about what /usr/bin/python is
> beyond what the RefMan says. The same sort of problem occurs if a
> script writer assumes /bin/sh is bash and uses bash-isms rather than
> sticking to the POSIX specification because /bin/sh could be any POSIX
> compliant sh
On Fri, Sep 07, 2001 at 08:33:28AM -0500, Ben Burton wrote:
|
| > In any case, Jython and CPython really do need to be able to co-exist
| > peacfully.
|
| They certainly coexist peacefully. No problem there. All I'm saying is that
| it doesn't support *.so CPython modules. And this is somehow
> In any case, Jython and CPython really do need to be able to co-exist
> peacfully.
They certainly coexist peacefully. No problem there. All I'm saying is that
it doesn't support *.so CPython modules. And this is somehow unavoidable
since jython is pure java.
So my concern is that if an ad
On Thu, Sep 06, 2001 at 05:32:12PM -0500, Ben Burton wrote:
|
| > I think the admin should be able to choose which python implementation
| > is referred to by /usr/bin/python independent of which python (or
| > python-base if you prefer) packages are installed (the alternatives
| > mechanism may b
On Thu, Sep 06, 2001 at 05:27:18PM -0600, Bruce Sass wrote:
| On Thu, 6 Sep 2001, Neil Schemenauer wrote:
| > dman wrote:
| > > I think the admin should be able to choose which python implementation
| > > is referred to by /usr/bin/python independent of which python (or
| > > python-base if you pre
Bruce Sass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> Does Perl go through the same pains as Python with respect to how it
> handles code breaking changes?
The Perl packages have it both easier and harder. Easier, because
Perl users seem to accept more code breakage; harder, because parts of
the packa
On Thu, 6 Sep 2001, Neil Schemenauer wrote:
> Bruce Sass wrote:
> > The python-base package gives me python->python2.1, from Python-2.1.1.
> > What happens when I point python to python3.0, will pydoc still work.
>
> What happens when I point /usr/bin/perl to Perl 4? I think I've just
> screwed up
On Thu, 6 Sep 2001, Neil Schemenauer wrote:
> dman wrote:
> > I think the admin should be able to choose which python implementation
> > is referred to by /usr/bin/python independent of which python (or
> > python-base if you prefer) packages are installed (the alternatives
> > mechanism may be a g
Bruce Sass wrote:
> The python-base package gives me python->python2.1, from Python-2.1.1.
> What happens when I point python to python3.0, will pydoc still work.
What happens when I point /usr/bin/perl to Perl 4? I think I've just
screwed up the system pretty badly. Use /usr/local for site spec
> I think the admin should be able to choose which python implementation
> is referred to by /usr/bin/python independent of which python (or
> python-base if you prefer) packages are installed (the alternatives
> mechanism may be a good idea for this).
[snip]
> o Jython or Stackless
Just as
dman wrote:
> I think the admin should be able to choose which python implementation
> is referred to by /usr/bin/python independent of which python (or
> python-base if you prefer) packages are installed (the alternatives
> mechanism may be a good idea for this). There can be any number of
> reas
On Thu, 6 Sep 2001, Neil Schemenauer wrote:
> Bruce Sass wrote:
> > On Thu, 6 Sep 2001, Neil Schemenauer wrote:
> > > Again the package is python-base, not python2.2-base. pydoc depends on
> > > python-base_2.1.1 and uses #!/usr/bin/python. I don't see a problem
> > > with that.
> >
> > Except yo
On Thu, Sep 06, 2001 at 12:38:42PM -0700, Neil Schemenauer wrote:
| Bruce Sass wrote:
| > On Thu, 6 Sep 2001, Neil Schemenauer wrote:
| > > Again the package is python-base, not python2.2-base. pydoc depends on
| > > python-base_2.1.1 and uses #!/usr/bin/python. I don't see a problem
| > > with t
Bruce Sass wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Sep 2001, Neil Schemenauer wrote:
> > Again the package is python-base, not python2.2-base. pydoc depends on
> > python-base_2.1.1 and uses #!/usr/bin/python. I don't see a problem
> > with that.
>
> Except you don't know which Python /usr/bin/python is.
Please thi
On Thu, 6 Sep 2001, Neil Schemenauer wrote:
> Again the package is python-base, not python2.2-base. pydoc depends on
> python-base_2.1.1 and uses #!/usr/bin/python. I don't see a problem
> with that.
Except you don't know which Python /usr/bin/python is.
If you do: /usr/bin/python2.1 or /usr/bin
* Neil Schemenauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010906 16:27]:
> Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> > Have you looked at my experimental Python packages, at
> > http://people.debian.org/~flight/python/snapshot/ ? I haven't yet tried
> > your packages, but it sounds like you started
Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> Have you looked at my experimental Python packages, at
> http://people.debian.org/~flight/python/snapshot/ ? I haven't yet tried
> your packages, but it sounds like you started from scratch ?
No, I based them on your python and python2 packages. I've m
* Neil Schemenauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010906 16:01]:
> Carey Evans wrote:
> > I've had a look at these packages myself. Can you tell us what stage
> > they're at, i.e. what still needs to be done, what problems you know
> > about and what you want to hear about?
>
> I thought my first message e
Carey Evans wrote:
> I've had a look at these packages myself. Can you tell us what stage
> they're at, i.e. what still needs to be done, what problems you know
> about and what you want to hear about?
I thought my first message explained that. Mostly the Depends,
Conflicts, Replaces, Provides i
Gregor Hoffleit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Have you looked at my experimental Python packages, at
> http://people.debian.org/~flight/python/snapshot/ ?
I've had a look at these packages myself. Can you tell us what stage
they're at, i.e. what still needs to be done,
Neil Schemenauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> python_2.1.1
> python1.5_1.5.2
> zope2.3.3
Why not python-1.5_1.5.2, zope-2.3.3 and similar binary packages? I
think this namenumber scheme is ugly and it looks strange.
name-version is more clear IMO.
> These create the following binary
opinion since he maintains a lot of these packages.
Have you looked at my experimental Python packages, at
http://people.debian.org/~flight/python/snapshot/ ? I haven't yet tried
your packages, but it sounds like you started from scratch ?
Gregor
See here:
http://people.debian.org/~nas/woody/
The source packages I have are:
python_2.1.1
python1.5_1.5.2
zope2.3.3
These create the following binary packages:
python-base
python-dev
python-elisp
python-examples
python-gdbm
python-mpz
python-regrte
There were two significant problems in the first round of the packages
I announced yesterday, therefore an silent update: Again,
http://www.debian.org/~flight/python/
or
deb http://www.debian.org/~flight/python ./
First, I have removed the superfluous idle.1 man pages from all other
packag
I have prepared a new revision of Python packages. I would have
uploaded them to master, but I'm running into problems with dpkg
upgrading (apt seems to work fine).
The packages are available via http:
http://www.debian.org/~flight/python/
apt should also work:
deb http://www.debian.org/~fl
26 matches
Mail list logo
