It will be uploaded during the BSP next weekend or earlier with your OK.
The patch looks right to me, so please go ahead.
Regards,
Martin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wouter Verhelst schrieb:
>> Wouter, can you please run "python -v" and report its output?
>
> Attached
Thanks. Unfortunately, I can't make sense out of it: when run this
way, Python doesn't fail at all.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Con
> Indeed, py_compilefiles uses os.path without importing it.
I fail to see the problem. It imports os, and that should automatically
give you os.path, unless 'posix' is not in builtin_module_names (which
is hard to imagine).
Notice that the original report said "'import site' failed", which
means
Package: python2.3-nevow
Version: 0.7.0-1
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable
The package depends on python2.3-twisted-web, yet that package
does not exist (anymore).
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
I personally can't see how taking the reasonable interpretation of a
public domain declaration can lead to any difficulties, but then,
IANAL.
The ultimate question is whether we could legally relicense such
code under the Python license, ie. remove the PD declaration, and
at
5 matches
Mail list logo
