Jim Penny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 21:27:16 +0200
> Andreas Rottmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> I wonder how long source packages that build binary packages for
>> multiple versions (2.{1,2,3}) should continue to build packages for
>> the old Python version
On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 10:53:07AM +0200, Andreas Rottmann wrote:
> But it is OK to drop 2.1/2.2 support for packages that nothing depends on?
-1
Developers are using such packages to check that their work will work on
several python versions.
For example, I recently had to work for a customer
Alexandre Fayolle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 10:53:07AM +0200, Andreas Rottmann wrote:
>> But it is OK to drop 2.1/2.2 support for packages that nothing depends on?
>
> -1
>
if -1:
print "parsed as true"
else:
print "parsed as false"
>
> Developers are using such
Hi *,
Today I got the attached two mails. I wonder how this happens and how to
fix it. Is it correct that zip archives are supported in sys.path now?
In that case probably python-gtk needs fixing. Otherwise something in
python is wicked.
Greetings
Torsten
--- Begin Message ---
Don't kno
On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 01:35:42PM +0200, Andreas Rottmann wrote:
> Alexandre Fayolle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 10:53:07AM +0200, Andreas Rottmann wrote:
> >> But it is OK to drop 2.1/2.2 support for packages that nothing depends on?
> >
> > -1
> >
> if -1:
>pri
On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 06:51:14PM +0200, Alexandre Fayolle wrote:
...
> > >
> > > -1
> > >
...
>
> My fault, I thought I was on python-dev (where -1 stands for 'I vote
> against this', see http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0010.html)
>
this was interesting...
-[ Domenico Andreoli, aka cavok
Hi,
I've taken over the pychecker package from Arto Jantunen, and I'm
looking over the remaining bugs. One of the three is #137320:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=137320
It requests that the Pychecker modules be installed in the Python search
path, so they can be imported,
On Thu, 2003-09-11 at 05:06, Kenneth Pronovici wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've taken over the pychecker package from Arto Jantunen, and I'm
> looking over the remaining bugs. One of the three is #137320:
>
>http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=137320
>
> It requests that the Pychecker mo
On Thu, 2003-09-11 at 02:51, Alexandre Fayolle wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 01:35:42PM +0200, Andreas Rottmann wrote:
> > Alexandre Fayolle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> > OK, so keep them around until the version in question is dropped from
> > the archive?
>
> This would be nice. Or un
> for this scheme, you don't need to make /usr/bin/pychecker handle
> alternate python versions explicitly. Just put '#!/usr/bin/python' at
> the front, and the correct /usr/lib/pythonX.Y will be on the pythonpath.
> If they explicitly use a different python version by running;
>
> $ python2.1 /us
10 matches
Mail list logo
