Re: Bug#786247: pyvtk: deprecation of python-support

2015-08-09 Thread Steve M. Robbins
On August 8, 2015 10:13:04 AM Piotr Ożarowski wrote: > [Steve M. Robbins, 2015-08-08] > > > I went looking for the most recent sources and found out that you > > > > can easily get pyvtk via pip. > > `sudo pip install ...` is the same as `rm -rf /` to me. I s

Re: pyvtk: deprecation of python-support

2015-08-07 Thread Steve M. Robbins
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 06:36:33PM +0200, dktrkr...@debian.org wrote: > Source: pyvtk > Version: 0.4.74-3 I haven't uploaded pyvtk since 2011. So while looking to fix this bug, I went looking for the most recent sources and found out that you can easily get pyvtk via pip. Since I don't use pyvtk

Re: Will rtupdate be used for python 2 --> python 3 transition?

2013-10-29 Thread Steve M. Robbins
Hi, On October 29, 2013 09:49:53 AM Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: > python3.X series and python2.X series are two distinct languages > (incompatible API and ABI changes), and it has been decided to keep > both alive as independent implementations. > thus "/usr/bin/python" will always point to a python2

Will rtupdate be used for python 2 --> python 3 transition?

2013-10-28 Thread Steve M. Robbins
Hello, The Debian Python Policy documents [1] the rtupdate script for dealing with default runtime changes. Is this documentation still valid? Will rtupdate be used when the default runtime changes to python 3 or later? Thanks, -Steve [1] http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/python-

Python 3.2: convert convert PyObject* to PyUnicodeObject*?

2011-04-05 Thread Steve M. Robbins
Hi, Boost 1.46.1 fails to build with Python 3.2 on linux (Debian). The build fails with: error: cannot convert -F?PyObject*? to ?PyUnicodeObject*? for argument ?1? to ?Py_ssize_t PyUnicodeUCS4_AsWideChar(PyUnicodeObject*, wchar_t*, Py_ssize_t)?-A at this code: static std::wstring extr

Re: Bug#595786: libboost-python-dev: Boost Python should also be compiled against Python3

2010-09-12 Thread Steve M. Robbins
x: debian/control === --- debian/control (revision 14598) +++ debian/control (working copy) @@ -4,9 +4,10 @@ Priority: optional Maintainer: Debian Boost Team Uploaders: Steve M. Robbins , Domenico Andreoli -Build-Depends: debhelper (>= 7), bison, flex, docbook-to-man, xsltproc,

Re: SONAME for python modules is bad?

2009-07-25 Thread Steve M. Robbins
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 07:13:19PM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote: > IMO it's potentially misleading clutter, but it doesn't harm anything, > so I'd consider it something that ought to be fixed, but very much low > priority. Agreed. Thanks, -Steve signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: SONAME for python modules is bad?

2009-07-24 Thread Steve M. Robbins
Hi, A cc is appreciated as I don't subscribe to debian-python. On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 03:49:16PM +0200, Mathieu Malaterre wrote: > On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Steve M. Robbins wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Recently, Mathieu Malaterre wrote to say that having a SOVERSION

SONAME for python modules is bad?

2009-07-21 Thread Steve M. Robbins
Hi, Recently, Mathieu Malaterre wrote to say that having a SOVERSION on a python module is wrong, with reference to an oblique comment from Josselin Mouette [1]. Is this true? What is the rationale for not versioning these shared objects? Is there any "more official" document that mandates this

python policy manual not reliable

2009-03-08 Thread Steve M. Robbins
On Sun, Mar 08, 2009 at 05:27:33AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le samedi 07 mars 2009 ? 22:17 -0600, Steve M. Robbins a ?crit : > > OK. I'm certainly in favour of avoiding complexity. However, I > > thought I was following the python policy [1] where B.1 says: &

Re: Bug#516766: insighttoolkit: generates incorrect package with python-support from experimental

2009-03-07 Thread Steve M. Robbins
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 04:16:50PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > the insighttoolkit rules file contains the following: > > PYMODDIR = usr/share/python-support/$(pkg_python) > PYEXTDIR = usr/lib/python-support/$(pkg_python)/$(PYVERS) > ... > install/$(pkg_python):: > dh_install -p$(pkg_p

Re: [Boost-build] Boost.Python: Build and Install with Python 2.4 and 2.5?

2008-05-01 Thread Steve M. Robbins
On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 10:30:32AM -0400, David Abrahams wrote: > > on Thu Mar 13 2008, "Steve M. Robbins" wrote: > > > Actually, the only thing about Boost that causes grief to packagers is > > that the toolset name (e.g. "gcc42") is embedded in

Re: When is rtupdate run?

2008-04-04 Thread Steve M. Robbins
On Sat, Apr 05, 2008 at 02:23:21AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > On ven, 2008-04-04 at 19:08 -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote: > > > On the other hand, I???m not sure such symbolic links are necessary for > > > debugging libraries; at least they are not for usual librarie

Re: When is rtupdate run?

2008-04-04 Thread Steve M. Robbins
On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 10:29:37PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > On ven, 2008-04-04 at 10:48 -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote: > > I was hoping is that if python is subsequently installed, that python > > itself would run the rtupdate scripts. This doesn't seem to be the >

When is rtupdate run?

2008-04-04 Thread Steve M. Robbins
On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 03:03:11PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > On mer, 2008-04-02 at 12:04 -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote: > > So here are some questions, and I'd like to throw then out to the > > wisdom of debian-python, too. > > > > 1. When does the rtupda

Re: [pkg-boost-devel] Bug#473973: libboost-python-dev: rdeps fails?to built - python packaging seems weird

2008-04-02 Thread Steve M. Robbins
For the debian-python readers just joining in: the recent modification of Boost to support multiple Python runtimes has some unintended consequences; see bug #473973. Below are some questions for your consideration. On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 06:11:34PM +0200, Sune Vuorela wrote: > If I ask specif

Re: [pkg-boost-devel] Boost.Python: providing libs for both Python 2.4 and 2.5.

2008-03-24 Thread Steve M. Robbins
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 05:52:47PM +, Dominic Hargreaves wrote: > However, it looks to be like the shlibs file needs updating. Yes, and thanks for the bug report. Upload is being prepared now. -Steve signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: [pkg-boost-devel] Boost.Python: providing libs for both Python 2.4 and 2.5.

2008-03-22 Thread Steve M. Robbins
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 03:59:30PM -0400, Aaron M. Ucko wrote: > I do, however, see a couple of concrete issues with your script: > > > if [ "$1" = "-d" ]; then > > debug=-d > > shift > > fi > > Shouldn't you fix that at build time à la $version? You noticed a complication I was avoidin

Boost.Python: providing libs for both Python 2.4 and 2.5.

2008-03-21 Thread Steve M. Robbins
Hello, I wrote about three weeks ago [1] that I'm trying to get Boost's Python extension helper library building with multiple Python versions. Several very helpful suggestions were made, for which I am grateful. I have been plugging away, very slowly, ever since. I'm hoping to upload it later

Re: [Boost-build] Boost.Python: Build and Install with Python 2.4 and 2.5?

2008-03-12 Thread Steve M. Robbins
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 09:11:25PM -0400, David Abrahams wrote: > > on Sat Feb 23 2008, "Steve M. Robbins" wrote: [...] > > This produces pairs of library files such as > > > > bin.v2/.../link-static/libboost_python-gcc42-1_34_1.a > &g

Re: [pkg-boost-devel] [boost] Boost.Python: Build and Install with Python 2.4 and 2.5?

2008-02-27 Thread Steve M. Robbins
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 08:43:43AM -0500, Stefan Seefeld wrote: > (I still don't see the problem: Source packages don't depend on binary > packages, only binary packages do. Source packages *do*, in fact, depend on binary packages. Each source package describes exactly the packages required t

Re: [pkg-boost-devel] [boost] Boost.Python: Build and Install with Python 2.4 and 2.5?

2008-02-26 Thread Steve M. Robbins
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 11:15:24PM -0500, Stefan Seefeld wrote: > Steve M. Robbins wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Thanks to Steve, Bernd, and Josselin for ideas. > > > > > > On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 09:17:24PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > >>

Re: [pkg-boost-devel] Boost.Python: Build and Install with Python 2.4 and 2.5?

2008-02-26 Thread Steve M. Robbins
a serious restriction? Given that Debian likes to package extensions for all python versions, I tend to think it will become a problem. On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 01:15:31PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Hi, > > Le samedi 23 février 2008 à 22:45 -0600, Steve M. Robbins a écrit : > >

Boost.Python: Build and Install with Python 2.4 and 2.5?

2008-02-23 Thread Steve M. Robbins
Hi, I'm part of the Debian Boost packaging team, seeking some guidance on how to build and install Boost.Python so that it is usable with all Python versions shipped in Debian. Debian currently ships Python 2.4 and 2.5. When reading the following, keep in mind that Boost.Python is not a Python e

Python Modules Packaging Team

2006-04-15 Thread Steve M. Robbins
Howdy, This sounds like a good initiative. I'd like to add the python-modules-team as uploader of pyvtk, a package I maintain. Do I understand correctly that this implies I should put pyvtk into the alioth subversion repository? If so: sign up user 'smr' for this. Cheers, -Steve -- To UNSUB

Re: pure python and postinst

2003-04-05 Thread Steve M. Robbins
On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 09:20:22AM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote: > G'day, > > just going through my old inbox messages that didn't seem to be replied > to; > > On Mon, 2002-11-18 at 13:11, Steve M. Robbins wrote: Well, thanks! I had forgotten about this. I'

breaks other packages

2002-11-25 Thread Steve M. Robbins
severity 170711 critical thanks Hi, I ran into coredumps when using python-vtk, see bug #170498. I believe the coredumps are due to python moving from tcl/tk 8.3 to tcl/tk 8.4. Other python extenion modules are still built with the older tcl/tk, so you end up with both 8.3 and 8.4 loaded. I th

pure python and postinst

2002-11-17 Thread Steve M. Robbins
Howdy, I've just finished my first attempt at packaging a python module. This module (people.debian.org/~smr/pyvtk) is purely python. I followed the "python policy" outlined in /usr/share/doc/python, and also looked at a couple of example packages. One thing I noticed in the packages (that isn't