On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 01:37:10PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:34:12PM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> > On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 15:49, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 11:44:22PM -0400, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
> > > > The negative effect for the use
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:34:12PM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 15:49, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 11:44:22PM -0400, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
> > > The negative effect for the users is that you can't upgrade python
> > > while wxgtk-python is install
On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 15:49, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 11:44:22PM -0400, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
> > The negative effect for the users is that you can't upgrade python
> > while wxgtk-python is installed so you can't try out the
> > latest-and-greatest python in the meanti
On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 11:44:22PM -0400, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
> The negative effect for the users is that you can't upgrade python
> while wxgtk-python is installed so you can't try out the
> latest-and-greatest python in the meantime. This is the issue at
> hand.
Sure you can:
On Sun, Aug 17, 2003 at 11:22:43AM +0200, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
| On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 08:33:26AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
| > Now, I could do the dependency on python (>= 2.2), python (<<2.3) thing.
| > But what would that gain me or users? I see no benefit there, other than
| > people
I haven't sat down to respond before now, but I've been following the
entire discussion.
On Sat, Aug 16, 2003 at 11:07:26PM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
| On Sat, 2003-08-16 at 00:20, Matthias Klose wrote:
| > Donovan Baarda writes:
| > > But that was kinda the point... you should be able to insta
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 04:27:31PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Josip Rodin wrote:
> > Am I the only one who has a disgusting reminiscence of netscape*.* packages
> > every time python* is mentioned? :P
> Actually I'm more reminded of the perl* packages and the complete mess
> that followed.
The rea
On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 08:33:26AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> Now, I could do the dependency on python (>= 2.2), python (<<2.3) thing.
> But what would that gain me or users? I see no benefit there, other than
> people tracking sid would find OfflineIMAP uninstallable until it gets
> updated to
G'day,
It's late and I don't have much time... but thought I'd quickly respond
to this one;
On Sat, 2003-08-16 at 00:20, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Donovan Baarda writes:
> > But that was kinda the point... you should be able to install a
> > pythonX.Y package without python (X.Y). This way you get
Donovan Baarda writes:
> But that was kinda the point... you should be able to install a
> pythonX.Y package without python (X.Y). This way you get
> /usr/bin/pythonX.Y, but not /usr/bin/python. I don't see any reason why
> python2.3 needs to depend on python at all. You should only need python
> (
On Fri, 2003-08-15 at 07:11, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Derrick 'dman' Hudson writes:
> > So what's the problem? The problem is
> >
> > $ apt-cache show python2.3 | grep Depends | head -1
> > Depends: libbz2-1.0, libc6 (>= 2.3.2-1), libdb4.1,
> > libncurses5 (>= 5.3.20030510-1), libreadl
Derrick 'dman' Hudson writes:
> So what's the problem? The problem is
>
> $ apt-cache show python2.3 | grep Depends | head -1
> Depends: libbz2-1.0, libc6 (>= 2.3.2-1), libdb4.1,
> libncurses5 (>= 5.3.20030510-1), libreadline4 (>= 4.3-1),
> libssl0.9.7, zlib1g (>= 1:1.1.4)
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 03:42:56PM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
| On Wed, 2003-08-13 at 23:33, John Goerzen wrote:
| > On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 02:14:55PM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
| > > > Actually, all that have that are now uninstallable. Some important ones
| > > > have that, such as libwxgtk
On Wed, 2003-08-13 at 23:33, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 02:14:55PM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> > > Actually, all that have that are now uninstallable. Some important ones
> > > have that, such as libwxgtk2.4-python.
> > >
> > > Shouldn't they depend on python2.2 instead
>
On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 02:14:55PM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> > Actually, all that have that are now uninstallable. Some important ones
> > have that, such as libwxgtk2.4-python.
> >
> > Shouldn't they depend on python2.2 instead
>
> No. There is a reason they are not installable... they d
On Wed, 2003-08-13 at 09:39, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 01:32:33PM -0400, Samuel Bronson wrote:
> > Well, I haven't had any python-related collisions from the pythonX.Y
> > scheme... python (>= 2.2), python (< 2.3) I've seen, of course... it
> > would be so much nicer if someone
On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 01:32:33PM -0400, Samuel Bronson wrote:
> Well, I haven't had any python-related collisions from the pythonX.Y
> scheme... python (>= 2.2), python (< 2.3) I've seen, of course... it
> would be so much nicer if someone added debian support to distutils,
> though ;-) (*hint*)
Joey Hess wrote:
>Josip Rodin wrote:
>
>
>>Am I the only one who has a disgusting reminiscence of netscape*.* packages
>>every time python* is mentioned? :P
>>
>>
>
>Actually I'm more reminded of the perl* packages and the complete mess
>that followed. And I keep expecting to see the same se
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 04:27:31PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Josip Rodin wrote:
> > Am I the only one who has a disgusting reminiscence of netscape*.* packages
> > every time python* is mentioned? :P
>
> Actually I'm more reminded of the perl* packages and the complete mess
> that followed. And I
Joey Hess writes:
> Josip Rodin wrote:
> > Am I the only one who has a disgusting reminiscence of netscape*.* packages
> > every time python* is mentioned? :P
>
> Actually I'm more reminded of the perl* packages and the complete mess
> that followed. And I keep expecting to see the same set of pro
[restricting cc to -python]
Joey Hess wrote:
> Josip Rodin wrote:
>>Am I the only one who has a disgusting reminiscence of netscape*.* packages
>>every time python* is mentioned? :P
> Actually I'm more reminded of the perl* packages and the complete mess
> that followed. And I keep expecting to see
Josip Rodin wrote:
> Am I the only one who has a disgusting reminiscence of netscape*.* packages
> every time python* is mentioned? :P
Actually I'm more reminded of the perl* packages and the complete mess
that followed. And I keep expecting to see the same set of problems
affect python.
--
see
i agree, we have a great support for Python.
thanks to those who make it possible.
cavok
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 11:47:48AM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
...
>
> Personally I was going to post "nice job everyone... the Python Policy
> looks like it is working". There are still a few niggly thing
On Thu, 2003-08-07 at 02:17, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 09:33:26AM -0500, Chad Walstrom wrote:
> > > > Am I the only one who has a disgusting reminiscence of netscape*.*
> > > > packages every time python* is mentioned? :P
> >
> > > hmmm.. just curious... why?
> >
> > The short
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 09:33:26AM -0500, Chad Walstrom wrote:
> > > Am I the only one who has a disgusting reminiscence of netscape*.*
> > > packages every time python* is mentioned? :P
>
> > hmmm.. just curious... why?
>
> The short of it: he's joking. Note the smiley. Even though package
> n
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 11:18:53AM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> Am I the only one who has a disgusting reminiscence of netscape*.*
> packages every time python* is mentioned? :P
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 02:59:00PM +0200, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
> hmmm.. just curious... why?
The short of it: he's j
hmmm.. just curious... why?
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 11:18:53AM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 10:31:53PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > Last weekend, python 2.3 was released.
> > With the next python2.3 upload, python2.3 becomes the default python
> > version.
>
> Am I the
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 10:31:53PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Last weekend, python 2.3 was released.
> With the next python2.3 upload, python2.3 becomes the default python
> version.
Am I the only one who has a disgusting reminiscence of netscape*.* packages
every time python* is mentioned? :P
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 10:31:53PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
| With the next python2.3 upload, python2.3 becomes the default python
| version.
Nice! This is the way to work on breaking dedian's reputation of
always being way behind.
-D
--
If Microsoft would build a car...
... Occasionally
Last weekend, python 2.3 was released. For an overview see
http://python.org/2.3/highlights.html
With the next python2.3 upload, python2.3 becomes the default python
version. Some packages become uninstallable until they are converted
to the new version. In this time you should not update
30 matches
Mail list logo
