On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 01:41:17PM +0100, Sascha Silbe wrote:
On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 01:17:49PM +0100, Simon Schampijer wrote:
[Debian]
could it be that 2.5 is only the default and that it is fine for a
package to depend on python 2.6?
No, that's not the case. Python 2.6 is only available in
On 11/19/2009 05:54 PM, Sascha Silbe wrote:
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 04:33:05PM +, Daniel Drake wrote:
We've found that sugar's recent switch to cjson has caused issues and
cjson upstream doesn't seem receptive to fixing them.
The latter isn't quite true: It has rejected the specific patch
On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 01:17:49PM +0100, Simon Schampijer wrote:
[Debian]
could it be that 2.5 is only the default and that it is fine for a
package to depend on python 2.6?
No, that's not the case. Python 2.6 is only available in experimental,
not in unstable or testing.
CU Sascha
--
Hi,
We've found that sugar's recent switch to cjson has caused issues and
cjson upstream doesn't seem receptive to fixing them.
So the plan is to move back to simplejson on monday, like things were
before.
Daniel
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 04:33:05PM +, Daniel Drake wrote:
We've found that sugar's recent switch to cjson has caused issues and
cjson upstream doesn't seem receptive to fixing them.
The latter isn't quite true: It has rejected the specific patch for
technical reasons (and proposed a
5 matches
Mail list logo
