http://Worldsat.rtfm.be
Après Http://Xsat.rtfm.be, nous revoila avec un nouveau Site et de nouvelles aventures ... Le Site est encore en cours de réalisation, mais le Forum est déja ouvert... Merci de passer nous voir à l'occasion Déjà disponible Les Firmwares de Toute la gamme des Recepteurs Worldsat. After Http://Xsat.rtfm.be, we come back with a new Site and from new adventures... The Site is still in progress, but the Forum is already opened... Please cross to see us occasionally Already available firmwares of decoders Worldsat PatrickWST from WorldSat Team Http://Worldsat.rtfm.be
Fwd: python-biggles bug
On Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 02:48:46PM +1000, Peter Hawkins wrote: > Hi... > > > On Mon, 23 Sep 2002 02:31 pm, you wrote: > > the python-biggles source package should produce a python-biggles > > binary package that depends on python2.2-biggles. this would be in > > addition to python2.[12]-biggles. this would make python-biggles > > compliant with the python policy and similar to other python module > > packages. > > Not in my reading of python policy. As far as I can see the creation > of a python-module package is optional. Then again the python policy > document is pretty unreadable in this section and needs to be fixed. > If you have issues with this way of doing things (ie. no default > package), then please get an authoritative answer from the guys who > maintain python-policy (and get them to make their document clearer), > and then ask me again. > > I can't think of a reason why you'd want the default package (as far > as I can see they are useless, since you have to rebuild your > packages every time a new python version comes out anyway). As an > alternative, tell me why you need a default package and I'll create > one (I just don't really see the point). > > =) > Peter above is an email from an exchange between myself and the maintainer of python-biggles. i told him that python policy says his source package should produce a python-biggles package that works with the default version of python. he thinks that it is not useful. he also said that he thought python policy was unclear on this issue. what do you guys think? -- gram pgpcrFkbOaPAQ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Fwd: python-biggles bug
mÃn 2002-09-23 klockan 22.34 skrev Graham Wilson: > > Not in my reading of python policy. As far as I can see the creation > > of a python-module package is optional. Then again the python policy > > document is pretty unreadable in this section and needs to be fixed. > > If you have issues with this way of doing things (ie. no default > > package), then please get an authoritative answer from the guys who > > maintain python-policy (and get them to make their document clearer), > > and then ask me again. I thought them optional too, I only recently added python-pyopenssl (so recently that it's in NEW). > > I can't think of a reason why you'd want the default package (as far > > as I can see they are useless, since you have to rebuild your > > packages every time a new python version comes out anyway). As an > > alternative, tell me why you need a default package and I'll create > > one (I just don't really see the point). This I don't agree with, though. :) It definitely makes sense to have a package that works with the default Python version, less number juggling for the user. > he thought python policy was unclear on this issue. As I said above, I think it's unclear too, and should be more precise. Is it the intention that if you have pythonX.Y-foo and pythonZ.W-foo you *may*, *should* or *must* have a python-foo package? Regards, Martin signature.asc Description: Detta =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=E4r?= en digitalt signerad meddelandedel
