Re: git (was: Making packaging Python modules fun again)

2014-01-29 Thread Barry Warsaw
On Jan 27, 2014, at 10:11 AM, W. Martin Borgert wrote: >About git: This needs clarification, e.g. will we settle on gbp? >Shall our branch be "master" (gpbs default) or "debian" (more >intuitive when one works with upstream)? Will we use the >pristine-tar branch or pristine tar files? Etc. That a

Re: Making packaging Python modules fun again

2014-01-27 Thread Thomas Goirand
On 01/27/2014 11:23 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: > Am 27.01.2014 00:14, schrieb Nicolas Dandrimont: >> - Adding Python 3 support when upstream has it > > I think this should make it into the python policy. > > Matthias I agree. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.de

Re: Making packaging Python modules fun again

2014-01-27 Thread Matthias Klose
Am 27.01.2014 00:14, schrieb Nicolas Dandrimont: > - Adding Python 3 support when upstream has it I think this should make it into the python policy. Matthias -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists

Re: Making packaging Python modules fun again (was: Re: Indeed, python-concurrent.futures is the same)

2014-01-27 Thread Elena ``of Valhalla''
On 2014-01-27 at 00:14:12 +0100, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote: > It has been a while since I have been meaning to post a message like this. I Thanks for writing this > - Be more welcoming to newcomers. I think that the "proof of previous work" >policy is a hurdle that we would be better off with

git (was: Making packaging Python modules fun again)

2014-01-27 Thread W. Martin Borgert
On 2014-01-27 00:14, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote: (a lot) I agree with everything. If somebody has time to update "my" packages to modern helpers, convert them from svn to git, or enable Python 3, please go on! About git: This needs clarification, e.g. will we settle on gbp? Shall our branch be "ma

Re: Making packaging Python modules fun again

2014-01-26 Thread Ben Finney
Nicolas Dandrimont writes: > I am strongly of the opinion that the DPMT should be a team, not just > a SVN repository with random packages and a mailing-list where people > shout at each other when they dare touch those packages. Thanks for expressing these constructive ideas. > This continuing

Re: Making packaging Python modules fun again (was: Re: Indeed, python-concurrent.futures is the same)

2014-01-26 Thread Thomas Kluyver
On 26 Jan 2014 16:33, "Paul Tagliamonte" wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:14:12AM +0100, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote: > > [ awesome points here ] > > > Cheers, > > Nicolas Dandrimont > > Hear, Hear! Ditto - I agree with just about everything Nicolas said. I'd love to see this become a cooperati

Re: Making packaging Python modules fun again (was: Re: Indeed, python-concurrent.futures is the same)

2014-01-26 Thread Paul Tagliamonte
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:14:12AM +0100, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote: [ awesome points here ] > Cheers, > Nicolas Dandrimont Hear, Hear! Cheers, Paul -- .''`. Paul Tagliamonte | Proud Debian Developer : :' : 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87 `. `'` http://peop

Making packaging Python modules fun again (was: Re: Indeed, python-concurrent.futures is the same)

2014-01-26 Thread Nicolas Dandrimont
* Barry Warsaw [2014-01-26 13:24:38 -0800]: > I do think we should be switching all team maintained packages to dh_py2 and > finally getting rid of py-support and py-central (!). For the sake of > consistency, I'd love to see the latter two just disappear completely, but at > least we here can w