Le jeudi 22 mars 2007 à 00:06 +0100, Thomas Jollans a écrit :
> There is also the option of only having one in the distribution, which should
> be PySyck for having more features. This would mean chucking the official
> binding out of debian, which I am not entirely comfortable with either.
If i
On Wednesday 21 March 2007 23:26, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 08:46:35PM +0100, Thomas Jollans wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > the debian python policy states that module packages should be named
> > python-foo, foo being the module name. I intend to package PySyck, which
> > contains t
On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 08:46:35PM +0100, Thomas Jollans wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the debian python policy states that module packages should be named
> python-foo, foo being the module name. I intend to package PySyck, which
> contains the module/package 'syck', which is also in python-syck (AFAICT
>
Hi,
the debian python policy states that module packages should be named
python-foo, foo being the module name. I intend to package PySyck, which
contains the module/package 'syck', which is also in python-syck (AFAICT
PySyck is basically a fork of the upstream bindings).
Would python-pysyck be
4 matches
Mail list logo