Le lundi 13 juin 2005 à 22:24 +0200, Josselin Mouette a écrit :
[...]
> 3. In most cases, they are useless. The python policy allows such
> packages for cases where a specific python version is required
> by a reverse dependencies. However, it should have been the
> exc
Hi Josselin.
Josselin Mouette wrote:
> 3. In most cases, they are useless. The python policy allows such
> packages for cases where a specific python version is required
> by a reverse dependencies. However, it should have been the
> exception and not the rule.
That's
I've been arguing about this issue on a case by case basis, but having a
look at the archive makes me think we need more radical action. For a
great bunch of python packages, there is one source providing
python2.2-foo, python2.3-foo and even python2.4-foo. Even for packages
with a very few (or eve
On Sun, 2005-06-12 at 13:40, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> I once had a discussion with Matthias Klose about reducing the number
> of Python versions in Debian and he said he'd like to get rid of 2.1
> and 2.2 after sarge is out. If I remember correctly, a problem is
> that 2.1 is needed by Jython and
Super software, swell prices, splendid service.
http://vhkk.gn2djfg9dqgnvhg.homohedralhj.com
The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage.
This is like deja vu all over again.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Tro
> However we should keep jython in the archives, upstream shows some
> activity for python2.3/2.4 compatibility.
For reference, it seems upstream is currently looking at a final
(non-beta) release around August [1]. Though they've missed deadlines
before, so please don't take this as definitive.
6 matches
Mail list logo
