On Wed, 2006-04-12 at 22:58 +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> zope2.9 is simply still sitting in NEW, and is not rejected. I see there
> was a clarification requested over the weekend about the big number of
> zope versions in the archive (2.9 would be the 4th), and Fabio replied.
> This was tw
On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 10:32:28PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Jeroen van Wolffelaar writes:
> > > Unfortunately FTP masters did reject the Zope2.x upload, which uses
> > > python2.4. Any reasons for that? Zope2.7 already was scheduled for
> > > removal.
> >
> > Can you please be more specific?
Jeroen van Wolffelaar writes:
> > Unfortunately FTP masters did reject the Zope2.x upload, which uses
> > python2.4. Any reasons for that? Zope2.7 already was scheduled for
> > removal.
>
> Can you please be more specific? And/or reply to the REJECT mail, as it
> states at the bottom of every reje
On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 04:33:35PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Jeroen van Wolffelaar writes:
> > On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 12:41:13AM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> > > So, because there were no objections to the python 2.1/2.2 removal,
> > > I'll be proceed
On Wed, 12 Apr 2006, Matthias Klose wrote:
> ok, I did run out of time last weekend, however python2.5,
> python2.3-doc, python2.4-doc are in NEW. According your logic about
> vacation times, the change of the default version probably should not
> be done before Easter.
Easter is 4 days or a full
Jeroen van Wolffelaar writes:
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 12:41:13AM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> > So, because there were no objections to the python 2.1/2.2 removal,
> > I'll be proceeding with that.
>
> Done now, I'd like to announce this, together wi
On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 12:41:13AM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> So, because there were no objections to the python 2.1/2.2 removal,
> I'll be proceeding with that.
Done now, I'd like to announce this, together with some warning about
default python version changes, if
x27;re roughly 16 weeks from the python freeze, including the debconf
period and the summer holiday period (for the northern hemisphere, that
is).
During these mere 16 weeks, python 2.1 & 2.2 needs to be dropped, the
default moved to 2.4, and the plan is to overhaul the python
policy/infrastr
Matthias Klose wrote:
> Jeroen van Wolffelaar writes:
> > The first freezes are already closing in fast,
>
> did I miss something? There's no update since
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/10/msg4.html
Yes. At least the January, 3rd one
(http://lists.debian.org/debian-deve
> decompyle2.2 has an unsatisfied build-dependency: python2.2-dev
This is a legacy package, and it requires python 2.2 (it will not work
with 2.3 or newer). I have just filed an ftp.d.o bug asking for it to
be removed. Users should have no problem switching to the newer decompyle
package instea
On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 01:38:43PM +0200, Iustin Pop wrote:
> I've already re-built these two packages, removing 2.1 and 2.2 support
> and adding 2.4. However, I've been unable to find a sponsor.
Thanks everyone for the suggestions. Will update the bug reports later
today with the relevant informa
Jeroen van Wolffelaar writes:
> The first freezes are already closing in fast,
did I miss something? There's no update since
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/10/msg4.html
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
On Fri, 07 Apr 2006, Iustin Pop wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 12:33:11PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> > python-pylibacl has an unsatisfied build-dependency: python2.2-dev
> > python-pyxattr has an unsatisfied build-dependency: python2.2-dev
>
> I've already re-built these two packages,
On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 01:38:43PM +0200, Iustin Pop wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 12:33:11PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> > python-pylibacl has an unsatisfied build-dependency: python2.2-dev
> > python-pyxattr has an unsatisfied build-dependency: python2.2-dev
>
> I've already re-buil
On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 12:33:11PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> python-pylibacl has an unsatisfied build-dependency: python2.2-dev
> python-pyxattr has an unsatisfied build-dependency: python2.2-dev
I've already re-built these two packages, removing 2.1 and 2.2 support
and adding 2.4. How
On Fri, 2006-04-07 at 12:33 +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> zopeinterface has an unsatisfied build-dependency: python2.2-dev
This package can be removed, pythonX-zopeinterface are now built
from zope3 source package.
--
Fabio Tranchitella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.''`.
P
Hi all,
It's been quite a while, but 2.1 and to a slightly lesser extend, 2.2
are really obsolete now. One of the issues with 2.1 and 2.2 are that
they don't build on amd64, and are holding up a whole chain of packages
also.
Therefore, I'd like to remove python 2.1 and 2.2 as s
On 7/12/05, Kenneth Pronovici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think you misunderstood my suggestion, and probably the suggestion of
> the OP. I did not suggest that we continue to maintain packages
> depending on these old Python versions. I just suggested that we
> continue to support the interpr
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 10:26:09PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mardi 12 juillet 2005 à 14:35 -0500, Kenneth Pronovici a écrit :
> > I did some hacking on pychecker earlier this year, and it was really
> > nice to have 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 all available on the same Debian
> > system. I wou
Le mardi 12 juillet 2005 à 14:35 -0500, Kenneth Pronovici a écrit :
> I did some hacking on pychecker earlier this year, and it was really
> nice to have 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 all available on the same Debian
> system. I would be disappointed if Debian dropped these interpreters
> completely for e
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 11:54:10AM -0700, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> 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.
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
> 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.
also sprach Jonas Meurer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.06.12.2326 +0200]:
> i asked about this recently on the pkg-zope-developers list.
> someone claimed that providing a smooth upgrade from zope 2.6 to
> 2.7 would be good, and maybe that implies that zope 2.6 will stay
> in the archive for some more
python2.4.
> AFAIK besides zope there are no other reasons to keep 2.3 in the
> archives.
according to upstream, zope 2.6 (default zope version in debian) should
best be run with python 2.1. python 2.2 is already depreciated. as zope
(2.6.4-1.8) already runs with python 2.2, at least this ve
Martin Michlmayr writes:
> 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 2.1 by Zope. Can someone p
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 2.1 by Zope. Can someone please work
on a plan to move thes
Ron writes:
>
> Howdy,
>
> On Sat, Apr 05, 2003 at 11:54:42AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > For wxwindows2.2 and 2.4 I see two RC reports. Any chance to fix these
> > soon?
>
> Well the bts issues relating to the package itself should now all
> be fixed in the 2.4.0.8 upload, however it appea
Howdy,
On Sat, Apr 05, 2003 at 11:54:42AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> For wxwindows2.2 and 2.4 I see two RC reports. Any chance to fix these
> soon?
Well the bts issues relating to the package itself should now all
be fixed in the 2.4.0.8 upload, however it appears its still going
to be kept
Ron writes:
> > What about removing wxwindows2.3 from unstable. AFAICR this was a
> > "development" release anyway. Same for 2.2, no other packages seem to
> > depend on this version anymore.
>
> Yes, they are certainly candidates for removal asap. When I looked
> yesterday poedit still showed up
Howdy,
On Sat, Apr 05, 2003 at 11:54:42AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> For wxwindows2.2 and 2.4 I see two RC reports. Any chance to fix these
> soon?
The biggest issue with them IMO is the png mess, and the right fix to
avoid thrashing on all sides is probably to transition them to gtk2
sooner
Hi,
For wxwindows2.2 and 2.4 I see two RC reports. Any chance to fix these
soon?
What about removing wxwindows2.3 from unstable. AFAICR this was a
"development" release anyway. Same for 2.2, no other packages seem to
depend on this version anymore.
Thanks, Matthias
Gregor Hoffleit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think we do agree that the License of Python 2.1.1, according to the
> FSF, is compatible with the GPL ?
Yes!
> This section is incorrect, in that Python 1.6.1 has yet another
> different license. It should read something like
>
> The License of
* Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011107 16:08]:
> Gregor Hoffleit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> > Python 1.6.1 is essentially the same as Python 1.6, with a few minor
> >> > bug fixes, and with a different license that enables later versions
> >> > to be GPL-compatible.
> >>
Gregor Hoffleit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Python 1.6.1 is essentially the same as Python 1.6, with a few minor
>> > bug fixes, and with a different license that enables later versions
>> > to be GPL-compatible.
>>
>> The license claims to be GPL compatible, but according to the
On Wed, Nov 07, 2001 at 03:10:31PM +0100, Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
| * Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011107 15:04]:
| > Neil Schemenauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| >
| > > It's probably better to check if you're unsure rather than speculate or
| > > guess. From the 2.1.1 LICENCE file:
| >
* Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011107 15:04]:
> Neil Schemenauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > It's probably better to check if you're unsure rather than speculate or
> > guess. From the 2.1.1 LICENCE file:
> >
> > Python 1.6.1 is essentially the same as Python 1.6, with a few mino
Neil Schemenauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It's probably better to check if you're unsure rather than speculate or
> guess. From the 2.1.1 LICENCE file:
>
> Python 1.6.1 is essentially the same as Python 1.6, with a few minor
> bug fixes, and with a different license that enables late
or
guess. From the 2.1.1 LICENCE file:
Python 1.6.1 is essentially the same as Python 1.6, with a few minor
bug fixes, and with a different license that enables later versions
to be GPL-compatible. Python 2.1 is a derivative work of Python
1.6.1, as well as of Python 2.0.
Cheers,
Neil
On Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 11:05:29PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
| Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> immo vero scripsit
|
| Please Cc: me, because I am not on the list.
|
| > python-ecasound
|
| I have been looking at python 2.1, and python2.1 debian/copyright file tells
| me that i
Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> I have been looking at python 2.1, and python2.1 debian/copyright file tells
> me that it is "not GPL compatible".
>
> Is it still so?
No. Python 2.1 is derived from 1.6.1 and _is_ GPL compatible.
According to some laywers Python 2.0 is not GP
Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> immo vero scripsit
Please Cc: me, because I am not on the list.
> python-ecasound
I have been looking at python 2.1, and python2.1 debian/copyright file tells
me that it is "not GPL compatible".
Is it still so?
regards,
j
Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You get this mail, because you are the maintainer of packages probably
> affected by the change of the Python version. Followups and replies,
> which could be of interest for all "Python packagers", should be sent to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your packages ar
On Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 03:53:19PM +1300, Carey Evans wrote:
> I notice that python2.1-base depends on libssl0.9.6. I haven't been
> following the developments in Debian's crypto policy, but doesn't this
> mean that python2.1-base should have been uploaded to non-US?
>
> --
>Carey Evans
> I notice that python2.1-base depends on libssl0.9.6. I haven't been
> following the developments in Debian's crypto policy, but doesn't this
> mean that python2.1-base should have been uploaded to non-US?
python2.1-base 2.1.1-1.1 should not depend on crypt and ssl. I've made
a python2.1-ssl pac
I notice that python2.1-base depends on libssl0.9.6. I haven't been
following the developments in Debian's crypto policy, but doesn't this
mean that python2.1-base should have been uploaded to non-US?
--
Carey Evans http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/c.evans/
"Ha ha!
On 4 Sep 2001, David Maslen wrote:
> Gregor Hoffleit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > How does that sound ?
>
> I think it sounds like an awful lot of work. I still don't really
> understand why we keep python1.5, but presumably there are some good
> reasons, and I trust the debian team to have thr
Gregor Hoffleit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm still alive, I'm not lost ;-)
You're not dead, which is the most important ;-)
> And that's the problem where I was stuck.
>
> The dependencies of the current experimental python1.5 packages aren't
> good enough to allow an easy upgrade from
c. That would remove the need for
> versioned dependencies.
I don't believe Python 2.0 is needed. I definitely support getting
new Python 2.1 packages into the archive by whatever means necessary.
AFAICS, for "apt-get dist-upgrade" to work, it should only be
necessary for new
Gregor Hoffleit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How does that sound ?
I think it sounds like an awful lot of work. I still don't really
understand why we keep python1.5, but presumably there are some good
reasons, and I trust the debian team to have thrashed that out by now.
You mentioned emacs, w
* Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010904 11:18]:
> Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> ...
> > in June (2.1) and July (2.1.1). Gregor (the python-1.5 and python-2.0
> > maintainer) has put experimental packages at
> > http://people.debian.org/~flight/python and was asking for help
>
Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
...
> in June (2.1) and July (2.1.1). Gregor (the python-1.5 and python-2.0
> maintainer) has put experimental packages at
> http://people.debian.org/~flight/python and was asking for help
> regarding the packaging (20010801). Jérôme Marant answered (2001
As David Maslen pointed out in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2001/debian-python-200109/msg0.html
Debian doesn't have yet python-2.1 in it's distro, although released
in June (2.1) and July (2.1.1). Gregor (the python-1.5 and python-2.0
maintainer) has put experimental packag
I've read through archives on this in the past, feel free to suggest
other URL's if this is a discussed to death topic, but;
Python 2.1 in now GPL compatable right? I saw some 2.1 packages in
one of the debian developers home directories. They aren't release
though, and that
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> [-- text/plain, encoding quoted-printable, 32 lines --]
>
> On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 04:34:35PM +0200, Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
>
>> Anyway, while I'm away, perhaps someone could start to audit the packages
>> that depend on Python, and file bugs for all p
On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 04:34:35PM +0200, Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> Anyway, while I'm away, perhaps someone could start to audit the packages
> that depend on Python, and file bugs for all packages that don't have a
> correct, explicit versioned dependency on python-base like
>
> Depends: pytho
On Sun, Jun 03, 2001 at 07:06:09PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Gregor Hoffleit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> This is probably correct, but it is completely irrelevant in our case.
>>> Some parts of Python 2.1 are still covered by the GPL-incompatible
>&g
Gregor Hoffleit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > This is probably correct, but it is completely irrelevant in our case.
> > Some parts of Python 2.1 are still covered by the GPL-incompatible
> > CNRI license, so Python 2.1 as a whole is not GPL compatible.
>
>
Gregor Hoffleit writes:
> I have uploaded experimental Python 2.1 packages. Grab them at
>
> http://people.debian.org/~flight/python2/
thanks!
> Now the problems start if neither 2.0.1 nor 2.1.1 would be ready in time. If
> it's obious early that the won't b
I have uploaded experimental Python 2.1 packages. Grab them at
http://people.debian.org/~flight/python2/
The packages are completely untested. I had to re-implement the building of
the shared library (just finished), the remainder of the packages is mostly
unchanged.
In a few hours, I will
On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 01:02:29PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Gregor Hoffleit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I talked to RMS, Eben Moglen and GvR. The bad news: According to RMS+Moglen,
> > the license used in Python 2.1 still is not yet compatible with the GPL. Th
Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Florian Weimer writes:
> > This is probably correct, but it is completely irrelevant in our case.
> > Some parts of Python 2.1 are still covered by the GPL-incompatible
> > CNRI license, so Python 2.1 as a whole is not
Florian Weimer writes:
> This is probably correct, but it is completely irrelevant in our case.
> Some parts of Python 2.1 are still covered by the GPL-incompatible
> CNRI license, so Python 2.1 as a whole is not GPL compatible.
which parts exactly?
Gregor Hoffleit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I talked to RMS, Eben Moglen and GvR. The bad news: According to RMS+Moglen,
> the license used in Python 2.1 still is not yet compatible with the GPL. The
> good news: The PSF decided to drop the choice of law clause. A modified
>
n be only
one .pyc file around.
Bastian
Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> I talked to RMS, Eben Moglen and GvR. The bad news: According to RMS+Moglen,
> the license used in Python 2.1 still is not yet compatible with the GPL. The
> good news: The PSF decided to drop the choice of law clause. A mod
her bugs. I think the new (2.1.1) license was
> blessed by rms... Sorry, I don't remember where I read this.
Here's a quick update:
I talked to RMS, Eben Moglen and GvR. The bad news: According to RMS+Moglen,
the license used in Python 2.1 still is not yet compatible with the
cal/lib/python2.x)
> > If you do not modify the code, all of your installed python
> > modules/packages (in prefix=/usr) will not be found by
> > /usr/local/bin/python.
>
> Which modules are you talking about? If you have pure Python
> modules you can make them available
On 21 May 2001 20:57:34 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> I really would like to see 2.1 in the next Debian release. I'd like to
> ask Gregor (the maintainer) for an upload schedule, so that other
> maintainers can rely on this to get their packages ready for the next
> release as well. Are there sti
distributed with Python works
fine when installed in /usr/local.
> If you do not modify the code, all of your installed python
> modules/packages (in prefix=/usr) will not be found by
> /usr/local/bin/python.
Which modules are you talking about? If you have pure Python
modules you can mak
On Mon, May 21, 2001 at 12:14:07PM -0700, Neil Schemenauer wrote:
> Matthias Klose wrote:
> > - new packages names python2.1-foobar
> >
> > - same package names, but add versioned dependencies: python-foobar (>= 2.1)
> >
> > The latter will cause some incompatibilities until all python2
> > depen
Matthias Klose wrote:
> - new packages names python2.1-foobar
>
> - same package names, but add versioned dependencies: python-foobar (>= 2.1)
>
> The latter will cause some incompatibilities until all python2
> dependent packages are uploaded for 2.1.
I strongly prefer the latter. If people wa
ok, python-2.1. was released some time ago. When and how will it
appear in unstable?
IMO it doesn't make sense to support python2.0 AND python2.1 in
unstable. Therefore I propose to drop 2.0 in unstable and upload
2.1. There seem to be two ways how this can be done:
- new packages
lict of law provisions.
-Notwithstanding the foregoing, with regard to derivative works based
-on Python 2.1 that incorporate non-separable material that was
-previously distributed under the GNU General Public License (GPL), the
-law of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall govern this License
-Agree
atible python 2.x in
> > woody.
>
> Actually, it'd be nice just to have Python 2.1 in woody before the
> freeze, whether or not it's GPL compatible. Or even get more Python
> 1.5 packages built for Python 2.0 as well.
Guido has recently checked in a license change that makes
;d be nice just to have Python 2.1 in woody before the
freeze, whether or not it's GPL compatible. Or even get more Python
1.5 packages built for Python 2.0 as well.
Is there anything I can do myself to help with the Debian Python
packages?
--
Carey Evans http://hom
On 18 Apr 2001 13:10:44 +0200, Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 03:33:45PM +0200, Vasko Miroslav wrote:
> > as Python 2.1 is out, there is no need to keep Python2 and Python152
> > in Debian, I think.
> >
> > it looks like 2.1 has GPL-compatible lice
ython -W ignore Scope.py
>
> (I created a file called Scope.py with that code in it)
>
A quick examination of the package lists show ~39 'python-*' packages
that don't have equivalent 'python2-*' packages. There are about ~100
packages tha
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 12:17:40PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
| Gregor Hoffleit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|
| [Python warning messages]
|
| > Could you mail an example of such a message ?
|
| y = None
| def fun():
| y = None
| def bar():
| y
| bar()
|
| fun()
|
| result
#x27;y' as global
in nested scope 'bar'
def fun():
There are probably other kinds of warnings; PyErr_Warn is called in a
number of places. Python 2.1 provides a mechanism to switch off
warnings (the 'warnings' module, don't ask me about details :-/), but
by default, they are printed to stderr.
ere are the same technical issues with Python 2.1
> > | > as with Python 2.0.
> > |
> > | Python 2.1 seems to print some diagnostic messages during run-time;
> > | this might affect scripts which are invoked in cron jobs.
> >
> > Are you sure they aren'
D-Man <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 10:25:52PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> | Steve Purcell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> |
> | > Licenses aside, there are the same technical issues with Python 2.1
> | > as with Python 2.0.
> |
"Sean 'Shaleh' Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> last I checked it only helped derivatives of python, not python itself.
AIUI, the point is that Python 2.1 is a derivative of CNRI Python 1.6.1.
--
Carey Evans http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/c.evans/
On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 10:25:52PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
| Steve Purcell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|
| > Licenses aside, there are the same technical issues with Python 2.1
| > as with Python 2.0.
|
| Python 2.1 seems to print some diagnostic messages during run-time;
Steve Purcell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Licenses aside, there are the same technical issues with Python 2.1
> as with Python 2.0.
Python 2.1 seems to print some diagnostic messages during run-time;
this might affect scripts which are invoked in cron jobs.
On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 08:26:00AM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
>
> On 18-Apr-2001 Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 03:33:45PM +0200, Vasko Miroslav wrote:
> >> as Python 2.1 is out, there is no need to keep Python2 and Python152
> >>
On 18-Apr-2001 Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 03:33:45PM +0200, Vasko Miroslav wrote:
>> as Python 2.1 is out, there is no need to keep Python2 and Python152
>> in Debian, I think.
>>
>> it looks like 2.1 has GPL-compatible license (it has,
Vasko Miroslav wrote:
> as Python 2.1 is out, there is no need to keep Python2 and Python152
> in Debian, I think.
> [snip]
> and code-breakage features like nested scopes are disabled by default.
Licenses aside, there are the same technical issues with Python 2.1
as with Python 2.0
On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 03:33:45PM +0200, Vasko Miroslav wrote:
> as Python 2.1 is out, there is no need to keep Python2 and Python152
> in Debian, I think.
>
> it looks like 2.1 has GPL-compatible license (it has, in fact, three
> licenses)
Thanks for pointing out the changes in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi!
as Python 2.1 is out, there is no need to keep Python2 and Python152
in Debian, I think.
it looks like 2.1 has GPL-compatible license (it has, in fact, three
licenses)
and code-breakage features like nested scopes are disabled by default.
am
Hello,
With the release of Python 2.1 and legal changes, will we soon be seeing
officially packaged Python 2.1 packages in unstable? And if so, how will
they relate to the existing Python packages?
Will they replace the Python 2.0 packages? Will they be compiled with
readline and gdbm support
90 matches
Mail list logo
