Re: python packaging infrastructure

2006-01-16 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le vendredi 13 janvier 2006 à 15:31 +0100, Matthias Klose a écrit : > sorry, what is complicated about the solution? > > please read again, these benefits aren't just aesthetic: > > - working on metadata without having all packages available (which > ones?) is not just aesthetic. What exactly

Re: python packaging infrastructure

2006-01-16 Thread Matthias Klose
Josselin Mouette writes: > Le vendredi 13 janvier 2006 à 15:31 +0100, Matthias Klose a écrit : > > sorry, what is complicated about the solution? > > > > please read again, these benefits aren't just aesthetic: > > > > - working on metadata without having all packages available (which > > ones?

Re: python packaging infrastructure

2006-01-16 Thread Juha-Matti Tapio
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 12:40:09PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: > Josselin Mouette writes: > > Le vendredi 13 janvier 2006 à 15:31 +0100, Matthias Klose a écrit : > > > - beeing able to support more python versions in a separate archive > > > is not just aesthetic (although not needed in the dist

Re: python packaging infrastructure

2006-01-16 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le lundi 16 janvier 2006 à 12:40 +0100, Matthias Klose a écrit : > > Looking at the mailing list archives, some people have tried to initiate > > discussions about making python in Debian evolve in the recent months, > > but it doesn't look like there has been much interest. > > please see debian-

Re: python packaging infrastructure

2006-01-16 Thread Matthias Klose
Josselin Mouette writes: > > correct, but making it easier for extensions and applications using > > private modules as well. when will python-support be able to support > > these? > > Python-support already handles private modules. As for extensions, I > don't think we should change the current p

Re: python packaging infrastructure

2006-01-16 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le lundi 16 janvier 2006 à 15:24 +0100, Matthias Klose a écrit : > > Python-support already handles private modules. As for extensions, I > > don't think we should change the current packaging practise. Packaging > > them is already complicated enough as it is. > > yes, a reason to simplify this.

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

2006-01-16 Thread Anthony Towns
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 09:45:29PM -0500, Eric Cooper wrote: > I saw today that the python-minimal package in unstable is tagged as > Essential (and currently pulls in python2.3). According to policy, > this is supposed to happen only after discussion on debian-devel and > consensus is reached, bu