Updated python-happydoc to policy
I updated python-happydoc to the proposed policy and uploaded it to ftp-master.debian.org:/home/doko/www/python-uploads/ . Lintian marked 'Depends: python (= 2.1), python ( 2.2)' as an error; so I used 'Depends: python (= 2.1)' and 'Conflicts: python (= 2.2)' -- Harry Henry Gebel West Dover Hundred, Delaware GPG encrypted email gladly accepted. Key ID: B853FFFE Fingerprint: 15A6 F58D AEED 5680 B41A 61FE 5A5F BB51 B853 FFFE
lintian and new python policy
Has anyone started modifying lintian? If I remember correctly, packages that generate lintian errors will be rejected... At the moment, lines like Depends: python1.5 cause an error, E: python-script-but-no-python-dep Also, someone else reported that lintian complains against Depends: python (= 2.1), python ( 2.2) Should the policy be changed to recommend: Depends: python (= 2.1) Conflicts: python (= 2.2) instead two deps on python? Or is two deps on python not a problem with new dpkg, apt etc? -- Tom Cato Amundsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] GNU Solfege - free eartraining, http://www.gnu.org/software/solfege/ pgpKI6Ssn8AaT.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Updated python-happydoc to policy
Hi. Harry Henry Gebel wrote: 'Depends: python (= 2.1), python ( 2.2)' as an error; so I used 'Depends: python (= 2.1)' and 'Conflicts: python (= 2.2)' No, this is not equivalent! The Conflict means that I cannot install happydoc and python2.2 simultaneously, and this is not desired. I know the lintian error, but this is a dpkg/apt/whatever bug, not a Python-Policy bug. Bastian
Re: lintian and new python policy
On Mon, Oct 29, 2001 at 12:40:33PM +0100, Tom Cato Amundsen wrote: Has anyone started modifying lintian? If I remember correctly, packages that generate lintian errors will be rejected... Lintian is advisory only. Also, someone else reported that lintian complains against Depends: python (= 2.1), python ( 2.2) This is a lintian bug. It's not bothering to notice that one's a less-than and the other's a greater-than. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Security here. Yes, maam. Yes. Groucho glasses. Yes, we're on it. C'mon, guys. Somebody gave an aardvark a nose-cut: somebody who can't deal with deconstructionist humor. Code Blue. -- Mike Hoye, see http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/armadillos.txt
Re: Packaging python-egenix-mx*
Matthias Klose [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Federico Di Gregorio writes: On Sun, 2001-10-28 at 22:34, Joel Rosdahl wrote: 3. As the policy mandates, I have made the packages depend on python (= 2.1), python ( 2.2) Lintian doesn't really like that. :-) For example: E: python-egenix-mxdatetime: package-has-a-duplicate-relation python N: N: The package seems to declare a relation on another package more than N: once. This is not only sloppy but can break some tools N: Okay, this wasn't a question, just a note. Which tools are this? Basically the error should prevent something like python (=1.x), python ( 1.y). I don't know. :-/ 4. Any other comments? Oh, and if anyone wants to look at or test the packages, get them here: deb http://joel.rosdahl.net/debian/ ./ deb-src http://joel.rosdahl.net/debian/ ./ looks ok. Would it make sense to add a 'Replaces:' line for those packages without the '-egenix' part? I.E: Package: python-egenix-mxdatetime Replaces: python-mxdatetime No, I don't think so, since they aren't compatible (e.g. to use mxDateTime 1.3.0 you import DateTime, but to use mxDateTime 2.0.2 you import mx.DateTime). Could you copy these packages to ftp-master.debian.org in ~doko/www/python-uploads? Will do today or tomorrow. Regards, Joel -- Joel Rosdahl [EMAIL PROTECTED] (PGP and GPG keys available)
Re: lintian and new python policy
Also, someone else reported that lintian complains against Depends: python (= 2.1), python ( 2.2) This is a lintian bug. It's not bothering to notice that one's a less-than and the other's a greater-than. Btw, isn't this Depends line problematic anyway? I could have python 1.5 and 2.2 simultaneously installed and the depends would be satisfied without achieving what the maintainer really wants (i.e. python 2.1). Ben.
Re: Updated python-happydoc to policy
On Mon, Oct 29, 2001 at 02:46:19PM +0100, Bastian Kleineidam wrote: Anthony Towns wrote: Uh, yes, they are equivalent. Ah, yes, given that the Python-Policy only allows one default Python interpreter, not more than one. Given that dpkg allows only one package called foo to be installed at once, and that Provides: are unversioned, Depends: foo (= bar), foo ( baz) and Depends: foo (= bar) Conflicts: foo (= baz) are always the same. This *could* conceivably change in the future if we get versioned provides (and thus can have a package foo (1.2), and a package bar that 'Provides: foo (= 2.0)', in which case a Depends: foo (= 1.2), foo (= 1.3), would have different behaviour to a 'Conflicts: foo ( 1.3)'. It could also change depending on how subarch support is eventually implemented: if you're allowed to have foo 2.0 (i386) installed at the same time as foo 1.3 (ia64) on the same machine, eg. But all that's bizarre arcana. At the moment it's true in all cases, and it's likely to be the same as far as python's concerned forever. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Security here. Yes, maam. Yes. Groucho glasses. Yes, we're on it. C'mon, guys. Somebody gave an aardvark a nose-cut: somebody who can't deal with deconstructionist humor. Code Blue. -- Mike Hoye, see http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/armadillos.txt
Taking over Iceme (a python application)
Hi, I've prepared some fixes for all bugs in Iceme (I ITAed some time ago). I did not upload a new version since I was waiting for the Python transition. I'll upload a new version soon. Cheers, -- Jérôme Marant [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://marant.org
