On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 04:28:53PM -0400, Jim Penny wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 02:54:31PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> > On Aug 14, Laura Creighton wrote:
[...]
> One final point. We will almost definitely not switch the default
> python in sid (current unstable), until there is talk that
On Fri, Jul 26, 2002 at 08:40:02AM +0200, Martin Sj?gren wrote:
> fre 2002-07-26 klockan 03.31 skrev Donovan Baarda:
> > If people are using the "simple wrapper" approach to supporting the default
> > Python, then switching to 2.2 would just consist of releasing empty
On Thu, Jul 25, 2002 at 03:28:59PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> On Jul 25, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > My current plan is:
> >
> > - upload python2.3 packages soon (when 2.3alpha1 is released)
> >
> > - remove python1.5 from unstable
> >
> > - adopt python-central for 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3, hopefully
On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 04:34:18AM -, Moshe Zadka wrote:
> On Thu, 23 May 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Baarda) wrote:
[...]
> > This situation is identical to the existing idle package. It's worth looking
> > at how it handles it.
>
> I'll take a look, than
On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 10:10:51AM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
[...]
> 1a) as 1), but also provide foo symlink for python (default).
>
> as 1), but also make foo (Depends: python (>=2.1), python (<<2.2),
> foo-python2.1) with symlink /usr/bin/foo to /usr/bin/foo-python2.2
A
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 04:50:02PM -, Moshe Zadka wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2002, Bastian Kleineidam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Ok, thats a problem. There is no way out for this; you'd have to
> > have two binaries.
>
> Yes, I know I'll have to have two binaries.
if I understand it, foo
On Sat, Apr 27, 2002 at 04:36:57PM +0200, Bastian Kleineidam wrote:
> Yeah,
>
> finally got around to update this package. Thanks to Donovan Baarda
> for his improvements!
> Please test this one if you want to build Python packages or modules.
>
> URL: http://people.debi
On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 10:57:43AM +0200, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote:
> After a short mail exchange with Joey Hess, I decided not ot package
> zope-devhelper any more.
>
> Instead, we camed out with a better idea: implement a debhelper program that
> can install sheared debconf templates
On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 11:44:56AM +0100, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I've had a small discussion with Julian Gilbey, packager of pktrace.
> Julian decided to make pktrace depend on python2.1, while pktrace does
> not depend on a specific python version per se.
>
> He asked me to take i
On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 02:19:25PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 10:49:48AM +1100, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 10:38:22AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Currently, you have the following options;
> > 3) Use "Depends:
On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 10:38:22AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> le mer 06-03-2002 ? 01:33, dman a ?crit :
>
> > | as I'm currently packaging solarwolf, I have a question about python
> > | bytecode. I have put the .py files used by the game in
> > | /usr/lib/games/solarwolf/ and I compile them
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 09:07:53PM +0100, Bastian Kleineidam wrote:
> Hi Donovan,
>
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2002 at 10:38:17AM +1100, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> > Did you see my analysis and modified "register-python-package" script? I
> > posted it under a misleading s
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 12:55:01PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 05:38:25PM +0100, Carel Fellinger wrote:
> > Are you sure all package names are sane? Or could some joker distribute a
> > (non official ofcourse) python package with a name just waiting to exploit
> > this un
On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 05:54:24PM -0500, Jim Penny wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 10:35:47AM +1100, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 23, 2002 at 03:31:26PM -0500, Jim Penny wrote:
[...]
> > The packages, provided they are built right, will be pretty self
> > explanitor
On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 05:38:25PM +0100, Carel Fellinger wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 03:34:46PM +1100, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> ...
> > OK, I got creative and figured out a way the python-central could work
> > without using an emac's style registry, instead just
On Sat, Feb 23, 2002 at 10:38:17AM +1100, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 12:05:22AM +0100, Bastian Kleineidam wrote:
> > Hello.
> >
> > The first version of the python-central package is online at
> > http://people.debian.org/~calvin/python-central/
&
On Sat, Feb 23, 2002 at 03:31:26PM -0500, Jim Penny wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 07:03:59PM -0500, Jim Penny wrote:
> > > On Sat, Feb 23, 2002 at 10:38:17AM +1100, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 12:05:22AM +0100, Bastian Kleineidam
On Sat, Feb 23, 2002 at 10:11:41PM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2002 at 12:45:07PM +1100, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> > > It may be that as python is simpler, we can simply have a script in a
> > > python-common package which does something like (pardon me if
On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 10:17:16PM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 10:19:56PM +1100, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> > > > Why not take the emacsen-common method and code and use this for
> > > > python? It probably won't work for C-extension modules
On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 10:06:06PM +0100, Christian Kurz wrote:
> On 22/02/02, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> > First, remember that this tool is explicity for the subset of packages
> > containing pure-python modules that work with multiple versions of Python.
>
> Well, but th
On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 12:05:22AM +0100, Bastian Kleineidam wrote:
> Hello.
>
> The first version of the python-central package is online at
> http://people.debian.org/~calvin/python-central/
>
> It provides support for installing pure Python modules independent
> of the Python version (see Pyth
On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 10:16:09AM +0100, Christian Kurz wrote:
> On 18/02/02, Bastian Kleineidam wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 12:48:02PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
[...]
> > Look at http://people.debian.org/~calvin/python-central/
OK, I promised I would have a look are python-central and
On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 01:16:59AM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 07:41:05PM -0800, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> > A program run by a user will never be able to write out the .py[co] files so
> > the files MUST be generated by the postinst which has root privs. Also we
> > c
On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 06:31:49PM -0500, Jim Penny wrote:
> OK, I am clearly not going to persuade you how wrong-headed ;-) you are,
> so proceed.
>
> Please use the debconf model. If there are enough clear benefits, both
> packagers and administrators will want to use your system.
[... snip
On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 11:28:50AM +0100, Bastian Kleineidam wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 07:41:31PM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > I have a suggestion, which may already have been thought of.
>
> For Python Policy 2.2.3, see
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2002/debian-python-200201/m
On Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 10:26:26AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Donovan Baarda writes:
> > G'day,
> >
> > just thought I'd have another look at the current policy and I couldn't find
> > it. Where is it again?
>
> /usr/share/doc/python, anybody a
G'day,
just thought I'd have another look at the current policy and I couldn't find
it. Where is it again?
Can we get a link to it put on the Debian devel page?
http://www.debian.org/devel/
--
--
ABO: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 07:41:31PM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> I have a suggestion, which may already have been thought of.
>
> Need: a python-module (pure Python) providing package should provide
> byte-compiled versions for all installed python versions (as long as
> there are no version depen
Quoting Jim Penny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 11:44:27PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 07:22:36AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > > Anthony Towns writes:
[...]
> BTW: I have no feeling about dropping python-2.0; it appears that
> portation from 2.0
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 11:53:24AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 08:00:20PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > If I don't hear a serious reason to keep python1.5, I plan to file a
> > bug report for ftp.debian.org to remove the python1.5 package.
>
> Eh?
>
> python1.5's stil
On Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 02:52:51PM +, Ricardo Javier Cardenes wrote:
>
> I'm re-packaging 'sip' and 'python-pyqt' to make them comply the new
> Policy, but I've just found a problem. Let me explain it a bit:
>
> - sip is a tool that helps creating Python wrappers over C++ classes.
>It pa
On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 05:23:30PM +0100, Joel Rosdahl wrote:
[...]
> But there is a problem: The current (from 1997) upstream version[1]
> doesn't work with Python >= 2.0. Now, Berthold Hoellmann, Oleg
> Broytmann and others have ported[2] kjbuckets to work with newer
> Pythons, but it's not as o
Quoting Anthony Towns :
> On Thu, Nov 01, 2001 at 11:38:57AM +1100, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> > Note that additionaly all packages that depend on plucker _and_ python
> must
> > use "Depends: plucker, python2.1" and _not_ "Depends: plucker, python
> (>= 2
Quoting Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Mikael Hedin writes:
> > Hi, I'm just finishing my new plucker package. And then I read the
> > policy again, and it said I should call my program python2.1-plucker,
> > as I use method 2 and the upstream name is plucker.
>
> Is plucker an applica
G'day,
On Sun, Oct 28, 2001 at 10:34:05PM +0100, Joel Rosdahl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have now finished Debianizing eGenix mx BASE (based on patch done by
> Federico Di Gregorio, see bug#56):
>
> http://www.lemburg.com/files/python/eGenix-mx-Extensions.html
>
> The upstream maintainer of "th
G'day,
Gregor's already answered most of these, but thought I'd throw in a comment
or two.
On Sun, Oct 28, 2001 at 12:11:04AM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> On Oct 27, Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> > I've put a version 0.3.6 of the Python Policy Draft on
> > http://people.debian.org/~flight/python/.
On Sun, Oct 28, 2001 at 02:57:15PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > 2.1.1 Support Only The Default Version
[...]
> > > + a new change to the major version of python, will make all
> > > packages depending on the default version being uninstalle
On Sat, Oct 27, 2001 at 01:38:05AM +0200, Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> I've put a version 0.3.6 of the Python Policy Draft on
> http://people.debian.org/~flight/python/. The version is still a little
> bit rough and sometimes incomplete, but it already gives a good outline
> of the Python packaging sys
On Wed, Oct 24, 2001 at 01:42:12AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2001 at 10:59:45PM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
[...]
> Uh, how many scripts rely on python 1.5? If Debian's main python is 2.1,
> why should a python 1.5 script remain available? I can't see an
On Tue, Oct 23, 2001 at 02:42:42PM +0200, Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> * Anthony Towns [011023 09:07]:
> > On Tue, Oct 23, 2001 at 01:31:50AM -0400, David M. Cooke wrote:
> > > At some point, Anthony Towns wrote:
[...]
> Just to make the discussion a little bit more focussed: I think several
> issues
On Tue, Oct 23, 2001 at 01:27:22PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 08:32:33AM -0700, Neil Schemenauer wrote:
> > Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 10:13:17AM +0200, Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> > > > Say, you would install 2.1.2 in /usr/local.
> > > How about we
On Tue, Oct 23, 2001 at 09:14:24AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Neil Schemenauer writes:
> > Matthias Klose wrote:
> > > - Recommend /usr/bin/env python over /usr/bin/python
> >
> > Again I must express my opposition to this idea. Using /usr/bin/env
> > totally breaks dependencies. There's no
Quoting Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Carey Evans writes:
> > Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> Thanks. Updated in 0.3.2:
>
> http://ftp-master.debian.org/~doko/python/
Nice work updating Neil's policy. I'd be interested to hear Niels comments now
that he is back.
Quoting Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Donovan Baarda writes:
> > Good point... I'd forgotten about that. This means we might as well go
> > strait to python2.1 as the default, but make sure that the
> python2.1-xxx
> > packages have versioned conflicts w
Quoting Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Jérôme Marant writes:
> > > I do propose that we install all architecture independant modules
> > > in /usr/share and all architecture dependent modules in /usr/lib
> > > as it has always been.
[..
---
ABO: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for more info, including pgp key
--
#! /bin/sh -e
#
# postinst script for the Debian python2.1-base package.
# Written 1998 by Gregor Hoffleit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&g
On Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 10:27:54AM +1300, Carey Evans wrote:
> Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> > exactly. But you see that these packages will break when you try to
> > upgrade. We can't make 2.1 the default right now, because we will
> > _silently_ break packages. Before
Quoting Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> With the last python-1.5.2-18.2 NMU we have non-conflicting python1.5,
> 2.0 and 2.1 packages in unstable, not more not less.
>
> Here two proposals, how to go further on. The first proposal is a
> safer proposal (but needs more uploads and needs loon
Quoting Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > ] python-2.1_2.1.1
> > ] python_2.1.1 (depends on python-2.1) (does "ln
> /usr/bin/python{2.1,}")
> > ] python-2.1-_ (depends on python-2.1)
> > ] python-_ (depends on python and
> python-2.1-)
> >
> > Hrm. That should be
Quoting Bruce Sass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi,
>
> On 16 Oct 2001, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> <...>
> > I installed both python1.5 and python2.1. And installing both on the
> same
> > system broke _all_ my python 1.5 packages: this is the alternative
> issue
> > Perl people have warned us about.
Quoting Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Donovan Baarda writes:
> > Quoting Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
[...]
> > I don't see how this was such a showstopper. Getting the
> > dependancies right to ensure a clean transition would have been
>
Quoting Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Jérôme Marant writes:
> > What about proposal and policy from Neil and his efforts?
>
> - the proposed packaging scheme doesn't allow smooth upgrades between
> one python version and a next version. compare python-1.5 to libc5
> and python-2.1 t
Quoting Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Donovan Baarda writes:
> > Some other questions;
> >
> > what happens with other packages that might/might not have installed
> > stuff into /usr/lib/python1.5? Will they break?
>
> No. However the priority of
Quoting Neil Schemenauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Donovan Baarda wrote:
> > In my above diagrams the (>=2.1,<2.2) dependancy could be replaced
> with a
> > python-api-2.1 provided by python (as suggested by Neil), but I think
> this
> > actually introduces
G'day,
Hope you don't mind me Cc'ing to you guys. Let me know if you don't like it and
I'll stop.
Quoting Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
[...]
> Open issue(s):
>
> - didn't handle the conversion/recompilation of /usr/local python
> packages.
Some other questions;
what happens with othe
Quoting Neil Schemenauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Jim Penny wrote:
[...]
> The python is a small package to create a link from /usr/bin/python2.2
> to /usr/bin/python. python-eggs is a dummy package for dependencies
> (similar to what is done for GCC). When we upgrade Python to 2.2 we
> have:
>
>
Quoting Neil Schemenauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Donovan Baarda wrote:
> > Packages like extension modules _are_ tied to a particular version and
> hence
> > should be in a python-X.Y-foo package that installs into
> /usr/lib/pythonX.Y.
> > There would also be
ersist untill someone
tells me to shut up (sorry :-)
> Donovan Baarda wrote:
> > From archive updating point of view, my scheme has a large
> > python-X.Y-foo added and a small python-foo updated when python
> > upgrades. Your scheme has a large python-foo updated and a lar
Quoting Neil Schemenauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Donovan Baarda wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 11:17:19PM -0700, Neil Schemenauer wrote:
> > > Donovan Baarda wrote:
> > > If you change the major or minor version of Python installed then
> > > packages
Quoting Neil Schemenauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Donovan Baarda wrote:
> > Hmmm, but if only "python" can provide python-api-*, then any packages
> that
> > depend on python-api-X.Y will be broken when a new version of python
> > providing python-api-X.Z com
On Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 11:10:43PM -0700, Neil Schemenauer wrote:
> Carey Evans wrote:
> > By way of example, suppose I have a package "spam" that embeds Python
> > 2.1, and therefore depends on python-2.1. spam also uses the "eggs"
> > module, and therefore depends on python-eggs, which depends o
On Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 11:31:44PM -0700, Neil Schemenauer wrote:
> Packages (mostly) conforming to this policy are at:
[...]
> - Packaged modules should depend on python-api-X.Y
>
> - Remove section on legacy versions of Python (they are
> independent). I should probably add a sect
On Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 11:17:19PM -0700, Neil Schemenauer wrote:
> Donovan Baarda wrote:
> > First off, you need to clarify what you are attempting to achieve. There
> > are
> > three possibile aims as I see it;
> >
> > 1) single "official" version o
G'day debian-python,
Just read the DWN, saw mention of the Python policy, read it, and subscribed to
this list to throw in some comments. I note that the policy was posted some
time ago, so these comments might be too late.
First off, you need to clarify what you are attempting to achieve. Ther
101 - 164 of 164 matches
Mail list logo
