Re: python2.2 for sarge?
fre 2002-07-26 klockan 03.31 skrev Donovan Baarda: > If people are using the "simple wrapper" approach to supporting the default > Python, then switching to 2.2 would just consist of releasing empty wrapper > packages with changed dependancies... pretty easy NMU stuff. > > If people are screaming for 2.2, then I'd say changing now and again to 2.3 > in Dec would be minimal hassle. However, it depends on demand vs effort..
Re: python2.2 for sarge?
Il gio, 2002-07-25 alle 21:20, Matthias Klose ha scritto: > some packages do have problems to built with 2.2 (packages which are > not updated for a loong time ...) do we need them in sarge? if they can't be ported to 2.2/2.3 upstream maybe they are not maintained. and if they are not maintained (and we don't need them) they can simply go. > My current plan is: > > - upload python2.3 packages soon (when 2.3alpha1 is released) yesss! > - remove python1.5 from unstable and all packages depending on it. right. > - adopt python-central for 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3, hopefully with the > help of the author, hint, hint > > - upload python2.3 beta to unstable > > - make it the python default > > - remove python2.1 from unstable please, gime some months to make the transition. > I don't see much sense in making the switch to 2.2 now and then again > to 2.3. But anyway, let's make unstable really unstable first by > switching to gcc-3.2 as the default compiler (coming soon :-) eheh. given that sarge won't be stable for another 12 months (optimistically) 2.3 will have plenty of time to stabilize. -- Federico Di Gregorio Debian GNU/Linux Developer & Italian Press Contact[EMAIL PROTECTED] INIT.D Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Don't dream it. Be it. -- Dr. Frank'n'further signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Bytecode compilation
On Thu, Jul 25, 2002 at 10:21:07PM +0200, Florent Rougon wrote: > Dave Swegen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > install python2.2 + friends on a 486 with 16 meg'o'ram :) Maybe it would > > be an idea to provide a script that the user can run when he feels the > > machine isn't needed for anything else. > > This doesn't sound like a bad idea, but the compiled file for python > packages are currently put in /usr (not /usr/local), along with their > corresponding .py. The packages create them in postinst and therefore > take the responsibility of deleting them when the package is removed. If > we let the admin create the compiled files in /usr with a script (à la > compileall.py), he might be surprised to see them removed with the > corresponding package. This can be argued about, however. How about letting compileall.py inform the user at the end of the run that compiled files will be deleted when the package is uninstalled? That way the user has been given fair warning. But yes, it isn't very pretty, and probably steps on the toe of some policy or other. > > > Anyway, I've done my uninformed butting in, and will return to lurk > > mode. > > Well, noone asked you to do so (that is, to return to lurk), AFAIK. My > answer wasn't meant to sound offensive. Apologies if it came across that I was offended. It is merely that I'm too lazy to often de-lurk :) Cheers Dave -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: python2.2 for sarge?
On Fri, Jul 26, 2002 at 08:40:02AM +0200, Martin Sj?gren wrote: > fre 2002-07-26 klockan 03.31 skrev Donovan Baarda: > > If people are using the "simple wrapper" approach to supporting the default > > Python, then switching to 2.2 would just consist of releasing empty wrapper > > packages with changed dependancies... pretty easy NMU stuff. > > > > If people are screaming for 2.2, then I'd say changing now and again to 2.3 > > in Dec would be minimal hassle. However, it depends on demand vs effort... > > > > If people really need 2.2, then it doesn't need to be the default anyway... > > just use the python2.2- packages... > > Except that a lot of packages only exist as python?. python-gtk and > pygame come to mind for example. Then perhaps they need to be changed to pythonX.Y-? If the alternative of making python2.2 the default isn't going to happen as soon as people using those packages would like... It's up to the mantainers, but I would think that something as bleeding edge as as pygame and python-gtk would be logical candidates for python2.X- packages. -- -- ABO: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for more info, including pgp key -- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
