python-2.1 for unstable?
ok, python-2.1. was released some time ago. When and how will it appear in unstable? IMO it doesn't make sense to support python2.0 AND python2.1 in unstable. Therefore I propose to drop 2.0 in unstable and upload 2.1. There seem to be two ways how this can be done: - new packages names python2.1-foobar - same package names, but add versioned dependencies: python-foobar (>= 2.1) The latter will cause some incompatibilities until all python2 dependent packages are uploaded for 2.1. I really would like to see 2.1 in the next Debian release. I'd like to ask Gregor (the maintainer) for an upload schedule, so that other maintainers can rely on this to get their packages ready for the next release as well. Are there still license issues which will be resolved in upcoming releases? Should we skip 2.1 and hope that 2.2 gets released upstream before the woody freeze? Thanks, Matthias
Re: python-2.1 for unstable?
Matthias Klose wrote: > - new packages names python2.1-foobar > > - same package names, but add versioned dependencies: python-foobar (>= 2.1) > > The latter will cause some incompatibilities until all python2 > dependent packages are uploaded for 2.1. I strongly prefer the latter. If people want multiple versions of Python installed they can easily download the source and install them into /usr/local/bin. Neil
Re: python-2.1 for unstable?
On Mon, May 21, 2001 at 12:14:07PM -0700, Neil Schemenauer wrote:
> Matthias Klose wrote:
> > - new packages names python2.1-foobar
> >
> > - same package names, but add versioned dependencies: python-foobar (>= 2.1)
> >
> > The latter will cause some incompatibilities until all python2
> > dependent packages are uploaded for 2.1.
>
> I strongly prefer the latter. If people want multiple versions
> of Python installed they can easily download the source and
> install them into /usr/local/bin.
>
I'd just like to comment on this. I installed python2.1 some time ago in
/usr/local. However this leads to problems. You have to modify some of
the code (eg PYTHONPATH IIRC) due to using prefix=/usr/local.
If you do not modify the code, all of your installed python
modules/packages (in prefix=/usr) will not be found by
/usr/local/bin/python.
I don't think I ever got it quite right, perhaps a simple
export PYTHONPATH=/usr/local/lib/python{2,2.1}:/usr/lib/python1.5
inside $HOME/.bashrc would be a better solution?
--
Gordon Sadler
Re: python-2.1 for unstable?
Gordon Sadler wrote:
> I'd just like to comment on this. I installed python2.1 some time ago in
> /usr/local. However this leads to problems. You have to modify some of
> the code (eg PYTHONPATH IIRC) due to using prefix=/usr/local.
Which code is "the code"? The code distributed with Python works
fine when installed in /usr/local.
> If you do not modify the code, all of your installed python
> modules/packages (in prefix=/usr) will not be found by
> /usr/local/bin/python.
Which modules are you talking about? If you have pure Python
modules you can make them available to Python 2.1 by copying the
source files to /usr/local/lib/python2.1/site-packages and
running compileall.py on them. Extension modules have to be
recomplied for 2.1. Its easy if the extensions use distutils:
$ python2.1 setup.py build
$ su
$ python2.1 setup.py install
> I don't think I ever got it quite right, perhaps a simple
> export PYTHONPATH=/usr/local/lib/python{2,2.1}:/usr/lib/python1.5
Bad idea. The stuff in /usr/lib/python1.5 is for Python 1.5. It
might by chance work with 2.0 or 2.1 but don't count on it.
Neil
Re: python-2.1 for unstable?
On 21 May 2001 20:57:34 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > I really would like to see 2.1 in the next Debian release. I'd like to > ask Gregor (the maintainer) for an upload schedule, so that other > maintainers can rely on this to get their packages ready for the next > release as well. Are there still license issues which will be resolved > in upcoming releases? Should we skip 2.1 and hope that 2.2 gets I don't think 2.1 is much better than 2.0 when it comes to GPL compatibility. But the roumurs say that there will be a 2.1.1 release that is fixes this and a few other bugs. I think the new (2.1.1) license was blessed by rms... Sorry, I don't remember where I read this. > released upstream before the woody freeze? > > Thanks, Matthias > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Tom Cato Amundsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GNU Solfege - free eartraining, http://www.gnu.org/software/solfege/
Re: python-2.1 for unstable?
On Mon, May 21, 2001 at 01:12:57PM -0700, Neil Schemenauer wrote:
> Gordon Sadler wrote:
> > I'd just like to comment on this. I installed python2.1 some time ago in
> > /usr/local. However this leads to problems. You have to modify some of
> > the code (eg PYTHONPATH IIRC) due to using prefix=/usr/local.
>
> Which code is "the code"? The code distributed with Python works
> fine when installed in /usr/local.
>
I was doing something awful here. You are correct, now that you've
pointed out (don't move /usr/lib/python1.x to /usr/local/lib/python2.x)
> > If you do not modify the code, all of your installed python
> > modules/packages (in prefix=/usr) will not be found by
> > /usr/local/bin/python.
>
> Which modules are you talking about? If you have pure Python
> modules you can make them available to Python 2.1 by copying the
> source files to /usr/local/lib/python2.1/site-packages and
> running compileall.py on them. Extension modules have to be
> recomplied for 2.1. Its easy if the extensions use distutils:
>
Actually I just did:
cd /usr/lib/site-python
cp *py /usr/local/lib/site-python
then ran compileall.py on /usr/local/lib/site-python.
I was completely missing the version independent items before. For some
reason I was trying to move /usr/lib/python1.5/site-packages/* to my
/usr/local python2 -(. Thanks for setting this straight.
> $ python2.1 setup.py build
> $ su
> $ python2.1 setup.py install
>
> > I don't think I ever got it quite right, perhaps a simple
> > export PYTHONPATH=/usr/local/lib/python{2,2.1}:/usr/lib/python1.5
>
> Bad idea. The stuff in /usr/lib/python1.5 is for Python 1.5. It
> might by chance work with 2.0 or 2.1 but don't count on it.
>
You are correct here as well. When I did some of this it was rather late
at night, bad habit of staying up late and trying to twiddle stuff on my
system. Thanks again.
--
Gordon Sadler
Re: python-2.1 for unstable?
Sorry guys for the silence. I had to go through upgrading my hardware, upgrading my line setup to a new provider with a flat fee, and finally, some real world work kept me busy. On Mon, May 21, 2001 at 10:35:15PM +0200, Tom Cato Amundsen wrote: > On 21 May 2001 20:57:34 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > > > I really would like to see 2.1 in the next Debian release. I'd like to > > ask Gregor (the maintainer) for an upload schedule, so that other > > maintainers can rely on this to get their packages ready for the next > > release as well. Are there still license issues which will be resolved > > in upcoming releases? Should we skip 2.1 and hope that 2.2 gets > > I don't think 2.1 is much better than 2.0 when it comes to GPL > compatibility. But the roumurs say that there will be a 2.1.1 release that > is fixes this and a few other bugs. I think the new (2.1.1) license was > blessed by rms... Sorry, I don't remember where I read this. Here's a quick update: I talked to RMS, Eben Moglen and GvR. The bad news: According to RMS+Moglen, the license used in Python 2.1 still is not yet compatible with the GPL. The good news: The PSF decided to drop the choice of law clause. A modified license is in CVS, and, according to Guido, will be used for the maintenance releases 2.0.1 and 2.1.1. The bright news: Moglen himself told me that the license text in CVS is compatible with the GPL. Guido asked for our release plan. He'd like to inform the release managers of 2.0.1 and 2.1.1, and seemed to be quite interested to make sure that the next release of Debian will contain a fixed version: On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 04:32:13PM +0200, Gregor Hoffleit wrote: > On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 09:48:38AM -0500, Guido van Rossum wrote: > > That would be great! When should 2.1.1 be out in order for it to be > > the default version? If I have a specific date I can put some > > pressure on the folks responsible for assembling the release! > > The earlier, the better, is all I can say ;-) > > > According to our release manager, Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, the > critical dates for the next release or like this: > > > * Policy goes into debugging mode on 1st June, and no further > > changes may be made after about 20th June. > > > > * Base packages must have all release-critical bugs fixed by > > 1st July, and no further changes may be made after about 20th Jul$> > > > * Boot-floppies, standard packages, task packages, and packages > > included in tasks or in boot-floppies need all their > > release-critical bugs fixed by 1st August, and no further > > release-critical bugs fixed by 1st August, and no further > > changes may be made to them after about 20th August. > > > > * The remaining packages (optional, extra) need their > > release-critical bugs fixed by 1st September, and no further > > changes may be made to them after about 20th September. > > > > * We release early to mid October. > > > > Again this is still fairly optimistic, and not necessarily going to > > happen. (Hi Slashdot.) > > > Looks like plenty of time, but due to the big tree of dependencies, the > timeframes are still quite tight. > > python is now a 'standard' package in Debian. Therefore I should not make > any critical changes on the default Python packages after August 1. > Currently, the 'default' Python packages are built from Python 1.5.2. A > problem is that it would take some time of preparation after the release of > Python 2.1.1 to change the default Python to 2.1.1 (coordinating uploads of > packages with new dependencies, testing of the dependencies, etc. pp.). > > > Given that the above dates all hold true: If Python 2.1.1 is out by July 1, > it should be possible to include it as default Python version in the next > release. (And, it would be ready in time for the European Python Meeting in > Bordeaux ;-). > > If it's out by mid-September, it still could be included, but only as second > choice. Python 1.5.2 would then be default. > > > Still, I would very much appreciate if it was released earlier, since that > would allow for a much smoother transition and for a better testing.
Re: python-2.1 for unstable?
Hi, Ok, I have read that too. 2.1.1 (and 2.0.1) are officially GPL compatible. I would be nice to have all Python related packages depend on a specific python version (Depends: python-base (>= 1.5.2), python-base (<< 2.0)), because with the current approach for Python in Debian there can be only one .pyc file around. Bastian Gregor Hoffleit wrote: > I talked to RMS, Eben Moglen and GvR. The bad news: According to RMS+Moglen, > the license used in Python 2.1 still is not yet compatible with the GPL. The > good news: The PSF decided to drop the choice of law clause. A modified > license is in CVS, and, according to Guido, will be used for the maintenance > releases 2.0.1 and 2.1.1. The bright news: Moglen himself told me that the > license text in CVS is compatible with the GPL.
