On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 01:49:46PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 08:29:12PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > Packages, that are too young are not considered for migration to
> > testing. As these packages have a dependency on "python (>=2.3)", they
>
> Few, if any, of my pac
On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 10:55:54AM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-10-08 at 03:28, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > It does help for python applications, which depend on an explicit
> > python version. I did not count packages with a 'python2.3 (>= 2.3)'
> > dependency.
>
> I would argue that
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 07:28:23PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Colin Watson writes:
> > For what it's worth, I think a python-defaults source package or some
> > such would help: at the moment there are several packages needlessly
> > stalled on python2.3, even though their dependencies are simp
Colin Watson writes:
> > The only reason to put a version on a "pythonX.Y" dependency would be if
> > you know there was a particular version of pythonX.Y that your package
> > doesn't work with.
>
> The versioned dependency is probably generated automatically by
> dpkg-shlibdeps:
>
> $ cat /va
Colin Watson writes:
> On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 07:28:23PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > Colin Watson writes:
> > > For what it's worth, I think a python-defaults source package or some
> > > such would help: at the moment there are several packages needlessly
> > > stalled on python2.3, even tho
On Tue, 2003-10-14 at 04:29, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Colin Watson writes:
> > On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 07:28:23PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > > Colin Watson writes:
> > > > For what it's worth, I think a python-defaults source package or some
> > > > such would help: at the moment there are sev
6 matches
Mail list logo
