Floris Bruynooghe wrote:
>On 22 April 2011 19:55, Stefano Rivera wrote:
>> Hi Barry (2011.04.22_03:28:12_+0200)
>>> When I click on 'last log' for say ia64, I just see a build log with
>>> no failures in it. So why does it show up on the main page with
>>> straight red-X's?
>>
>> The transition
On 22 April 2011 19:55, Stefano Rivera wrote:
> Hi Barry (2011.04.22_03:28:12_+0200)
>> When I click on 'last log' for say ia64, I just see a build log with
>> no failures in it. So why does it show up on the main page with
>> straight red-X's?
>
> The transition tracker is just tracking the stat
On Thursday, April 21, 2011 09:28:12 PM Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Apr 15, 2011, at 10:17 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> >I just uploaded python-defaults to Unstable that drops Python 2.5 and adds
> >Python 2.7 as supports Python versions. Python-central, distribute, and
> >python-stdlib-extensions ar
On Apr 22, 2011, at 08:55 PM, Stefano Rivera wrote:
>Hi Barry (2011.04.22_03:28:12_+0200)
>> When I click on 'last log' for say ia64, I just see a build log with
>> no failures in it. So why does it show up on the main page with
>> straight red-X's?
>
>The transition tracker is just tracking the
Hi Barry (2011.04.22_03:28:12_+0200)
> When I click on 'last log' for say ia64, I just see a build log with
> no failures in it. So why does it show up on the main page with
> straight red-X's?
The transition tracker is just tracking the state of the transition.
Green ticks means the current bina
On Apr 15, 2011, at 10:17 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>I just uploaded python-defaults to Unstable that drops Python 2.5 and adds
>Python 2.7 as supports Python versions. Python-central, distribute, and
>python-stdlib-extensions are already updated to support Python 2.7. The
>planned python-suppo
I just uploaded python-defaults to Unstable that drops Python 2.5 and adds
Python 2.7 as supports Python versions. Python-central, distribute, and
python-stdlib-extensions are already updated to support Python 2.7. The
planned python-support upload later today will complete having the core Pyt
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 11:53 PM, Jakub Wilk wrote:
>> pyliblo 0.8.1-2
>
> Agreed, looks broken.
Fixed in 0.8.1-3.
Please unblock.
Regards.
--
Alessio Treglia
Debian & Ubuntu Developer | Homepage: http://www.alessiotreglia.com
0FEC 59A5 E18E E04F 6D40 593B 45D4 8C7C DCFC 3FD0
--
To UNSUBSC
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 12:08:04 +0200, Alessio Treglia wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 11:53 PM, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> >> pyliblo 0.8.1-2
> >
> > Agreed, looks broken.
>
> Fixed in 0.8.1-3.
> Please unblock.
>
Done.
Cheers,
Julien
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On 09/27/2010 09:14 PM, Toni Mueller wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 27.09.2010 at 00:10:35 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>> Yes, and? We will have Python2.5 in Lenny thanks to your own fault of
>> starting
>> the transition more than half a year too late. Please don't start to create a
>> mess now.
>
On Wed, 2010-09-29 at 09:33 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le lundi 27 septembre 2010 à 20:02 +0100, Adam D. Barratt a écrit :
> > On Mon, 2010-09-27 at 09:51 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > > Le dimanche 26 septembre 2010 à 23:53 +0200, Jakub Wilk a écrit :
> > > > >gnome-python-extras 2.25.
Le lundi 27 septembre 2010 à 20:02 +0100, Adam D. Barratt a écrit :
> On Mon, 2010-09-27 at 09:51 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Le dimanche 26 septembre 2010 à 23:53 +0200, Jakub Wilk a écrit :
> > > >gnome-python-extras 2.25.3-5
> > > python-gda depends on both python2.5 and libpython2.6.
>
Hi,
On Mon, 27.09.2010 at 00:10:35 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> Yes, and? We will have Python2.5 in Lenny thanks to your own fault of starting
> the transition more than half a year too late. Please don't start to create a
> mess now.
I'm not sure I understand. Maybe s/Lenny/Squeeze/?
Kind r
On Mon, 2010-09-27 at 09:51 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le dimanche 26 septembre 2010 à 23:53 +0200, Jakub Wilk a écrit :
> > >gnome-python-extras 2.25.3-5
> > python-gda depends on both python2.5 and libpython2.6.
>
> Fixed in 2.25.3-6. Please unblock.
I thought such cases were, according
Le dimanche 26 septembre 2010 à 23:53 +0200, Jakub Wilk a écrit :
> >gnome-python-extras 2.25.3-5
> python-gda depends on both python2.5 and libpython2.6.
Fixed in 2.25.3-6. Please unblock.
Cheers,
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `' “If you behave this way because you are blackmailed
On 09/26/2010 09:49 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> There still around 50 packages depending, recommending or suggesting
> python2.5, without explicitly build-depending on python2.5 or
> python2.5-dev.
Yes, and? We will have Python2.5 in Lenny thanks to your own fault of starting
the transition more t
* Matthias Klose , 2010-09-26, 21:49:
A large chunk of these seem to be release critical, especially those
which depend on python python2.6 (libpython2.6) and python2.5.
On the contrary, these are safe to ignore in most cases. Such
dependencies are typically autogenerated because Python module
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 21:49:28 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> The easier solution would be to remove python2.5 from the list of
> supported python versions and rebuild.
>
NAK. The solution to an incomplete python transition is not to
introduce yet another one.
Cheers,
Julien
sign
There still around 50 packages depending, recommending or suggesting python2.5,
without explicitly build-depending on python2.5 or python2.5-dev. A large chunk
of these seem to be release critical, especially those which depend on python
python2.6 (libpython2.6) and python2.5. Another chunk of
Simon McVittie ha scritto:
> ... and for those who care about FTBFSs, the binNMUs of pygtk are also all
> failing (either due to #548211 or not waiting for python2.6-gobject to be
> available), which could stall this transition fairly badly. I'm sure the GNOME
> team would appreciate help with that
Am Donnerstag, den 28.01.2010, 07:10 -0500 schrieb Scott Kitterman:
> > Scott Kitterman (17/12/2009):
> >> I believe that we are getting close to uploading Python 2.6 to
> >> Unstable and dropping Python 2.4 as a supported Python version. If
> >> we finish preparations in the next week, are there
Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 28.01.2010 12:50, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
>> Scott Kitterman (17/12/2009):
>>> I believe that we are getting close to uploading Python 2.6 to
>>> Unstable and dropping Python 2.4 as a supported Python version. If
>>> we finish preparations in the next week, are there any
On 28.01.2010 12:50, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Scott Kitterman (17/12/2009):
I believe that we are getting close to uploading Python 2.6 to
Unstable and dropping Python 2.4 as a supported Python version. If
we finish preparations in the next week, are there any ongoing
transitions a python2.6/pyt
> Scott Kitterman (17/12/2009):
>> I believe that we are getting close to uploading Python 2.6 to
>> Unstable and dropping Python 2.4 as a supported Python version. If
>> we finish preparations in the next week, are there any ongoing
>> transitions a python2.6/python- defaults upload would entang
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 at 12:50:24 +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> FWIW, here are some FTBFSes I've reported lately, which look due to
> this transition:
[...]
... and for those who care about FTBFSs, the binNMUs of pygtk are also all
failing (either due to #548211 or not waiting for python2.6-gobjec
Scott Kitterman (17/12/2009):
> I believe that we are getting close to uploading Python 2.6 to
> Unstable and dropping Python 2.4 as a supported Python version. If
> we finish preparations in the next week, are there any ongoing
> transitions a python2.6/python- defaults upload would entangle tha
Hi Jakko, Pierre, Python experts, and Release Team,
looking at ldaptor, I think that it might not have been updated to the
python-policy. So I'm wondering whether it's desirable to NMU ldaptor
again with something along the lines of Pierre's patch. Jakko is the
last NMUer, so I'm CCing him as well
On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 06:49:42PM -0300, Jose Carlos Medeiros wrote:
> I updated package,, but before upload it , I would like to solve this
> file permissions problem.
> Well, DSFG says that we cannot put a chmod 77 in a /var/games/* file then
> to solve I setted suid to group games and put /va
Hi,
I updated package,, but before upload it , I would like to solve this
file permissions problem.
Well, DSFG says that we cannot put a chmod 77 in a /var/games/* file then
to solve I setted suid to group games and put /var/games/..file.conf
in games group.
With binary packages I havent proble
Hi,
I updated package,, but before upload it , I would like to solve this
file permissions problem.
Well, DSFG says that we cannot put a chmod 77 in a /var/games/* file then
to solve I setted suid to group games and put /var/games/..file.conf
in games group.
With binary packages I havent proble
Hi,
Yes, Piotr sent to me a patch. I will aplly this patch and upload
my package .
Then if I still receive lintian errors I contact you again :)
Regards
Jose Carlos
2006/8/29, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 05:33:58PM -0300, Jose Carlos Medeiros wrote:
> Hi,,
On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 05:33:58PM -0300, Jose Carlos Medeiros wrote:
> Hi,, I need help with this migration.
> I did all steps that are in
> http://wiki.debian.org/DebianPython/NewPolicy
> When I run lintian
> If I put python as dependence, I receive a msg showing duplicated
> python dependen
tags 380914 + patch
thanks
Attached patch will only make necessary changes for the new python
policy, some other issues still has not been resolved, i.e.
* old Standards-Version
* missed space before Homepage pseudo header (dev ref 6.2.4)
* file permission problems, after saving scores I'm getti
tags 380914 + help
quit
Hi,, I need help with this migration.
I did all steps that are in
http://wiki.debian.org/DebianPython/NewPolicy
When I run lintian
If I put python as dependence, I receive a msg showing duplicated
python dependence.
And if I just ${python:Depends} I receive msg that I
at the first stage).
Ok, some things I consider bugs with the current state of the
transition and I would have expected in a "Status of the Python
transition" page:
- way of expressing dependencies on a particular version of python
modules (#379455)
- support of rtupdate scri
Le mer 2 août 2006 11:23, Loïc Minier a écrit :
> - status of the transition Wiki page: a summary of steps which are
>in progress (pointer to python transition pseudo-bug, pointers to
>the list of bugs to be fixed in the mass bug filing, description of
>the step)
that cou
y discussed together why it would be nice to announce /
discuss future mass bug filings to allow peer review (also when
reporting bugs that were missed by the initial filing). Here are some
suggestions of things I think would have improved the Python
transition:
- status of the transition Wiki page: a
Le mercredi 02 août 2006 à 10:21 +0200, Pierre Habouzit a écrit :
> Yesterday, a last round of bugs has been filled against packages that
> may need an upgrade to comply with the recent python policy[1].
Please also note that some of these bugs are invalid. For example, if
the package ships some
ated announces (at least 2 or 3 mails on d-d-a@) about the
python transition were sufficient. that plus the fact that the bugs
are /important/ and not RC (some may become, for packages that B-D
upon python2.3 where they should on python-dev, but we are not here
yet, and /that/ wi
tag 380871 +help
thanks
Hi Debian python experts,
I'd much appreciate if someone NMUd mini-dinstall for the Python transition.
Please do claim ownership of this bug (#380871) when you do so.[1]
Should people have sustained interest in mini-dinstall, co-maintainers are
also very welcome.
On Tue, Jul 11, 2006, Loïc Minier wrote:
> From gst0.10-python's configure.ac:
[...]
> PYGTK_DEFSDIR=`$PKG_CONFIG --variable=defsdir pygtk-2.0`
> => (/usr/share/pygtk/2.0/defs: I can only ship that one time)
> PYGTK_H2DEF=`$PKG_CONFIG --variable=codegendir pygtk-2.0`/h2def.py
> PYG
Hi all,
urwid (0.9.5-1) unstable; urgency=low
* New upstream release
- add new example graph.py to debian/examples
* Build the tutorial and Build-Depend on python-templayer
* Don't use XS-Python-Version and XB-Python-Version
* Move python to Build-Depends
* Only build the docs and r
On Tue, Jul 11, 2006, Loïc Minier wrote:
> It's also possible to influence the PKG_CONFIG_PATH, eg.
> PKG_CONFIG_PATH=/usr/lib/pkg-config/python2.3:$PKG_CONFIG_PATH in
> debian/rules.
I tried this, and it wasn't too hard except it needed a "rtupdate"
script to update the symlinks after a defa
On Tue, Jul 11, 2006, Loïc Minier wrote:
> Or should pyexecdir be dropped from .pc files?
After some IRC discussion, this is not an option, and would violate the
contract between the upstream .pc file authors and the upstream
application developers trying to use these .pc files.
Some other i
Hi,
(I just subscribed to debian-python and a quick googling didn't bring
any prior reference to this problem.)
% pkg-config --variable pyexecdir pygtk-2.0
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages
% pkg-config --variable pyexecdir gst-python-0.10
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-package
On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 11:24:28AM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> Supporting just one version, the current one, is fine. However, you do
> need to migrate the package to use pycentral, since dh_python alone will
> no longer manage the byte (re)compilation of the .py modules.
Speaking of which, does
On Thu, 2006-06-15 at 19:17 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> Can someone upload the urwid package from the python-modules svn?
Update: As requested in #debian-python, I've uploaded the dsc/diff.
dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/u/urwid/urwid_0.9.4-1.dsc
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian
On Thu, 2006-06-15 at 09:15 +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> Le jeu 15 juin 2006 00:00, Peter Samuelson a écrit :
> > unblock 373387 by 373628
> > thanks
> >
> > (This block was a false positive. While we use cdbs a little, we
> > don't actually use it for anything python-related.)
> >
> > First, i
Hi all,
Can someone upload the urwid package from the python-modules svn? It
updates to a new upstream and completes the changes needed for the new
python policy.
New upstream tarball is here:
http://excess.org/urwid/urwid-0.9.4.tar.gz
Changelog:
urwid (0.9.4-1) unstable; urgency=low
* New
Le jeu 15 juin 2006 00:00, Peter Samuelson a écrit :
> unblock 373387 by 373628
> thanks
>
> (This block was a false positive. While we use cdbs a little, we
> don't actually use it for anything python-related.)
>
> First, it's not clear to me what advantages anyone would get from
> "fixing" the s
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 03:37:24PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Based on the lists I posted earlier during the transition and on doko's
> lists of packages holding the move to testing, here is a summary of
> python-related packages which still have issues regarding the python
> policy. I have d
Kenneth Pronovici writes:
> > Still need to be updated:
> [...]
> > * python-epydoc: the default package doesn't depend on python
>
> I did the last NMU for python-epydoc because Moshe seems to be missing
> in action (?); I can probably fix this problem as well.
>
> Just to make sure I understand
Le ven 17/10/2003 à 16:34, Kenneth Pronovici a écrit :
> Just to make sure I understand, I should be changing the python-epydoc
> dependencies from this:
>
>Depends: python2.3-epydoc
>
> to this:
>
>Depends: python (>= 2.3), python (<< 2.4), python2.3-epydoc
>
> Correct?
This is correc
> Still need to be updated:
[...]
> * python-epydoc: the default package doesn't depend on python
I did the last NMU for python-epydoc because Moshe seems to be missing
in action (?); I can probably fix this problem as well.
Just to make sure I understand, I should be changing the python-epydoc
d
Based on the lists I posted earlier during the transition and on doko's
lists of packages holding the move to testing, here is a summary of
python-related packages which still have issues regarding the python
policy. I have deliberately omitted packages not byte-compiling their
.py's, as this stuff
On Tue, 2003-10-14 at 04:29, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Colin Watson writes:
> > On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 07:28:23PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > > Colin Watson writes:
> > > > For what it's worth, I think a python-defaults source package or some
> > > > such would help: at the moment there are sev
Colin Watson writes:
> On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 07:28:23PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > Colin Watson writes:
> > > For what it's worth, I think a python-defaults source package or some
> > > such would help: at the moment there are several packages needlessly
> > > stalled on python2.3, even tho
Colin Watson writes:
> > The only reason to put a version on a "pythonX.Y" dependency would be if
> > you know there was a particular version of pythonX.Y that your package
> > doesn't work with.
>
> The versioned dependency is probably generated automatically by
> dpkg-shlibdeps:
>
> $ cat /va
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 07:28:23PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Colin Watson writes:
> > For what it's worth, I think a python-defaults source package or some
> > such would help: at the moment there are several packages needlessly
> > stalled on python2.3, even though their dependencies are simp
On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 10:55:54AM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-10-08 at 03:28, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > It does help for python applications, which depend on an explicit
> > python version. I did not count packages with a 'python2.3 (>= 2.3)'
> > dependency.
>
> I would argue that
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 01:49:46PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 08:29:12PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > Packages, that are too young are not considered for migration to
> > testing. As these packages have a dependency on "python (>=2.3)", they
>
> Few, if any, of my pac
On Wed, 2003-10-08 at 03:28, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Colin Watson writes:
> > On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 11:40:50AM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
[...]
> It does help for python applications, which depend on an explicit
> python version. I did not count packages with a 'python2.3 (>= 2.3)'
> dependency
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 08:29:12PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Packages, that are too young are not considered for migration to
> testing. As these packages have a dependency on "python (>=2.3)", they
Few, if any, of my packages have such a dependency. In most packages, I
depend on the specifi
John Goerzen writes:
> On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 07:18:41PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > The e-mail I sent made several exceptions from the freeze, one of them
> > fixing RC reports. So yes, you are supposed to fix these problems
> > yourself. As I introduced this RC in 0.5.1-5.1, I fixed it in
>
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 07:18:41PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> The e-mail I sent made several exceptions from the freeze, one of them
> fixing RC reports. So yes, you are supposed to fix these problems
> yourself. As I introduced this RC in 0.5.1-5.1, I fixed it in
> 0.5.1-5.2.
Which is nice, b
Colin Watson writes:
> On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 11:40:50AM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> > On Sun, 2003-10-05 at 02:55, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > > Donovan Baarda writes:
> > > > The second problem is is when we get python (2.4), a new python2.3
> > > > package will need to be released just to fix
John Goerzen writes:
> Hello,
>
> I hope I am not alone in this.
>
> I find the whole Python transition process to be rather confusing. For
> instance, I recently received an e-mail asking me not to upload various
> Python packages. A day later, one of them got NMU&#x
Hello,
I hope I am not alone in this.
I find the whole Python transition process to be rather confusing. For
instance, I recently received an e-mail asking me not to upload various
Python packages. A day later, one of them got NMU'd. I am confused; what
exactly is the problem and why wo
On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 11:40:50AM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> On Sun, 2003-10-05 at 02:55, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > Donovan Baarda writes:
> > > The second problem is is when we get python (2.4), a new python2.3
> > > package will need to be released just to fix the dependencies. The
> > > Pyt
On Sun, 2003-10-05 at 02:55, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Donovan Baarda writes:
> > On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 02:28:52PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > > Hi, Colin Watson wrote:
[...]
> > The second problem is is when we get python (2.4), a new python2.3
> > package will need to be released just to f
Donovan Baarda writes:
> On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 02:28:52PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > Hi, Colin Watson wrote:
> >
> > > Incidentally, I think that python2.3 should definitely depend on python,
> > > even if unversioned. This is what python2.2 in testing does, and it
> > > would avoid the
On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 02:28:52PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi, Colin Watson wrote:
>
> > Incidentally, I think that python2.3 should definitely depend on python,
> > even if unversioned. This is what python2.2 in testing does, and it
> > would avoid the "I installed python2.3 but my progr
On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 04:02:50PM +1000, Peter HAWKINS wrote:
> I'm the maintainer (just returning from an extended unexpected
> vacation).
> The problem is this (from the buildd log):
> Build-Depends: debhelper (>> 3.0.0), debconf, python2.2-dev (>= 2.2.3),
> python2.3-dev, apache2, apache2-d
Hi, Colin Watson wrote:
> Incidentally, I think that python2.3 should definitely depend on python,
> even if unversioned. This is what python2.2 in testing does, and it
> would avoid the "I installed python2.3 but my programs that use
> /usr/bin/python still don't work!" FAQ.
So include a "Recomm
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 12:25:29PM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-09-30 at 06:50, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > Colin Watson writes:
> > > While this would probably help users, it won't make the transition
> > > easier as far as testing is concerned, because python comes from the
> > > pyt
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 10:48:11PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Colin Watson writes:
> > Buggy packages
> > ==
>
> gnue-* is missing here.
No; gnue-common in testing depended on python2.1, not python. The
version in unstable should certainly be fixed, but it's not holding up
testing
Hi...
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 10:53:13PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 10:47:09PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > > Missing builds
> > > ==
>
> > > * libapache2-mod-python: powerpc
>
> > already asked for rebuild ... no reaction.
>
> I could take a look a
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 10:47:09PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > Missing builds
> > ==
> > * libapache2-mod-python: powerpc
> already asked for rebuild ... no reaction.
I could take a look at this in the next day or two, if no one else
bites.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern progr
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 02:02:38PM +1000, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-09-29 22:47]:
> > but one of it's build-dep's is listed as:
> > -gimp1.2 (1.2.3-2.4 to -)
> > * Maintainer: Ben Gertzfield
> > * Valid candidate
> > so probably, it doesn't make
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 10:47:09PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > * gimp-python: #207304
>
> automake problem, which it seems I failed to fix.
>
> but one of it's build-dep's is listed as:
>
> -gimp1.2 (1.2.3-2.4 to -)
>
> * Maintainer: Ben Gertzfield
> * Valid candidate
>
> so p
* Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-09-29 22:47]:
> but one of it's build-dep's is listed as:
> -gimp1.2 (1.2.3-2.4 to -)
> * Maintainer: Ben Gertzfield
> * Valid candidate
> so probably, it doesn't make sense to move it to testing, if gimp1.2
> is removed.
Actually, gimp1.2 still
On Tue, 2003-09-30 at 06:50, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Colin Watson writes:
> > On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 11:29:12PM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> > > what about python2.3 having "Depends: python (>= 2.3)"
> > >
> > > This is IMHO a policy violation. python (2.3) should depend on python2.3,
> > > pyt
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * python-gnome2: s390
Due to #212854 on gnome-vfs2 ... I'll probably NMU gnome-vfs2 soon if
Takuo KITAME doesn't fix it.
Cheers,
Sebastien Bacher
Colin Watson writes:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 11:29:12PM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> > what about python2.3 having "Depends: python (>= 2.3)"
> >
> > This is IMHO a policy violation. python (2.3) should depend on python2.3,
> > python2.3 should not depend on python.
> >
> > It's playing havoc
Colin Watson writes:
> (cc'ed to -release for general information)
>
> Hi folks,
>
> Here's a summary of the problems currently blocking python2.3 from
> testing. It may be slightly incomplete, but I think I've got most of
> them.
fyi, yesterday I updated the list from Joss, see
http://people.de
Colin Watson writes:
> Buggy packages
> ==
gnue-* is missing here.
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 03:21:42PM -, Alastair wrote:
> From: Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Missing builds
> > ==
> >
> > * newt: hppa
>
> Is this an error /out of date? From the archive,
> it appears that hppa is up-to-date on newt for
> both sarge and sid.
Slightly out
- Original Message
From: Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: debian-python@lists.debian.org
Cc: debian-release@lists.debian.org
Subject: Summary of python transition problems
Date: 29/09/03 10:49
Hi,
>
> (cc'ed to -release for general information)
>
>
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 11:29:12PM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> what about python2.3 having "Depends: python (>= 2.3)"
>
> This is IMHO a policy violation. python (2.3) should depend on python2.3,
> python2.3 should not depend on python.
>
> It's playing havoc with my mixed testing/unstable sys
'gramps' showed in my list of held-back programs today.
It is held back because it depends on python2.3-xmlbase.
When I try to install python2.3-xmlbase, apt-get tells me:
Note, selecting python2.3 instead of python2.3-xmlbase
python2.3 is already the newest version.
--
"Be regular and orderly
* Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-09-29 11:49]:
> Buggy packages
> ==
>
> * garchiver: #210828
I requested its removal a while ago (#212383).
--
Martin Michlmayr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> (cc'ed to -release for general information)
>
> Hi folks,
>
> Here's a summary of the problems currently blocking python2.3 from
> testing. It may be slightly incomplete, but I think I've got most of
> them.
>
>
> Buggy packages
> ==
[...]
what about python2.3 having "Depends: pytho
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 12:16:37PM +0100, Mikhail Sobolev wrote:
> is libmetakit-python missing from this list for a reason?
It depends on python2.2, which isn't a problem as far as testing's
concerned. Packages depending on 'python (>= 2.2), python (<< 2.3)' are
problematic.
--
Colin Watson
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 11:49:03AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
[ a list of packages skipped ]
is libmetakit-python missing from this list for a reason?
--
Misha
pgpJaTCkadaOr.pgp
Description: PGP signature
(cc'ed to -release for general information)
Hi folks,
Here's a summary of the problems currently blocking python2.3 from
testing. It may be slightly incomplete, but I think I've got most of
them.
Buggy packages
==
* garchiver: #210828
* gimp-python: #207304
* lincredits: co
Le lun 25/08/2003 à 22:44, John Belmonte a écrit :
> There seems to be a package I'm interested in that is missing from the
> TODO list: quixote.
>
> Actually, many packages seem to be missing. I use this command to get a
> list:
>
> grep-available -F Depends "python2.2" -s Package | \
>
There seems to be a package I'm interested in that is missing from the
TODO list: quixote.
Actually, many packages seem to be missing. I use this command to get a
list:
grep-available -F Depends "python2.2" -s Package | \
cut -d " " -f 2 | grep -v "2.2" | sort
Also, I think every
Le mar 12/08/2003 à 18:52, Frederic Peters a écrit :
> Josselin Mouette wrote :
>
> > What version of python is installed on your system ? Your packages built
> > fine on my system and made python-tal depend on python2.3-tal as
> > expected.
>
> Great. I had python 2.3 installed but not yet as d
Josselin Mouette writes:
> I've put a summary of packages needing a rebuild in a world-writable
> file at http://people.debian.org/~joss/python-list.txt
> python-numarray-ext => updated but the new package misses python (>= 2.3),
> python (<< 2.4)
unneeded, as it depends on python-numarray.
any
Josselin Mouette wrote :
> What version of python is installed on your system ? Your packages built
> fine on my system and made python-tal depend on python2.3-tal as
> expected.
Great. I had python 2.3 installed but not yet as default python
version (waiting for python-bsddb3). I don't have ac
1 - 100 of 122 matches
Mail list logo
