Go ahead and do a v2, it was more of a reminder for me.
On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 4:26 PM, Mark Asselstine <
mark.asselst...@windriver.com> wrote:
> On Monday, December 18, 2017 4:07:44 PM EST Derek Straka wrote:
> > I also need to look at the UPSTREAM_CHECK_URI for this recipe since it
> > isn't f
On Monday, December 18, 2017 4:07:44 PM EST Derek Straka wrote:
> I also need to look at the UPSTREAM_CHECK_URI for this recipe since it
> isn't finding the latest version and telling me to update the package.
Odd. Let me know how it goes. If it is easier for you to make the changes
locally and c
I also need to look at the UPSTREAM_CHECK_URI for this recipe since it
isn't finding the latest version and telling me to update the package.
On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 4:02 PM, S. Lockwood-Childs wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 03:17:25PM -0500, Derek Straka wrote:
> > I have several customers wh
On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 03:17:25PM -0500, Derek Straka wrote:
> I have several customers who have optimized for space and would like to see
> the capability maintained unless core removes the ability to split python
> packages out. They also remove the *.py files in favor of *.pyo files (via
> a c
On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Derek Straka wrote:
> I have several customers who have optimized for space and would like to see
> the capability maintained unless core removes the ability to split python
> packages out. They also remove the *.py files in favor of *.pyo files (via
> a custom pa
I have several customers who have optimized for space and would like to see
the capability maintained unless core removes the ability to split python
packages out. They also remove the *.py files in favor of *.pyo files (via
a custom packaging mechanism). I have automated tests that go through th
On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Alexander Kanavin
wrote:
> On 12/18/2017 06:15 PM, Mark Asselstine wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Christopher Larson
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> All our python recipes should be explicitly listing the python module
>>> packages they require. No python modul
On 12/18/2017 06:15 PM, Mark Asselstine wrote:
On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Christopher Larson wrote:
All our python recipes should be explicitly listing the python module
packages they require. No python module recipes should be depending on
python-modules or python3-modules, but explicit
On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Christopher Larson wrote:
> All our python recipes should be explicitly listing the python module
> packages they require. No python module recipes should be depending on
> python-modules or python3-modules, but explicitly what they require.
This is a giant PITA
All our python recipes should be explicitly listing the python module
packages they require. No python module recipes should be depending on
python-modules or python3-modules, but explicitly what they require.
On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 8:33 AM, Mark Asselstine <
mark.asselst...@windriver.com> wrote:
On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 4:58 PM, Derek Straka wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 2:00 PM, Mark Asselstine <
> mark.asselst...@windriver.com> wrote:
>
>> Drop the json<-->simplejson patch instead opting to depend on
>> python-json (part of core python libs). Beyond this the uprev is
>> straightforward
On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 2:00 PM, Mark Asselstine <
mark.asselst...@windriver.com> wrote:
> Drop the json<-->simplejson patch instead opting to depend on
> python-json (part of core python libs). Beyond this the uprev is
> straightforward.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mark Asselstine
> ---
> .../recipes-dev
Drop the json<-->simplejson patch instead opting to depend on
python-json (part of core python libs). Beyond this the uprev is
straightforward.
Signed-off-by: Mark Asselstine
---
.../recipes-devtools/python/python-pyroute2.inc| 23 +--
.../import-simplejson-as-json.patch
13 matches
Mail list logo
