Re: python 2.2 to python 2.3 transition
> Depending on Python 2.3 when a package works fine with 2.1 and 2.2 > as well is not a good solution in my opinion. Modem users must spend an extra hour downloading just to get a tiny package too.
Re: #!/usr/bin/python2.3 vs #!/usr/bin/env python2.3
Quoting John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hello, > > Many Python programs use constructs like #!/usr/bin/env python2.3 to load > themselves. Many others use #!/usr/bin/python2.3. On most Debian systems, > these are the same. > > The submitter in #189473 claims that #!/usr/bin/env python2.3 is wrong > because he has his own python2.3 on the path prior to the system's, and it > doesn't necessarily have requisite libraries for the programs being run. #!/usr/bin/env python2.3 helps programs running everywhere, i.e. they will work with people that installed python in /usr/local/bin for instance. -- Jérôme Marant
Re: #!/usr/bin/python2.3 vs #!/usr/bin/env python2.3
Quoting Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Quoting John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Hello, > > > > Many Python programs use constructs like #!/usr/bin/env python2.3 to load > > themselves. Many others use #!/usr/bin/python2.3. On most Debian > systems, > > these are the same. > > > > The submitter in #189473 claims that #!/usr/bin/env python2.3 is wrong > > because he has his own python2.3 on the path prior to the system's, and it > > doesn't necessarily have requisite libraries for the programs being run. > > #!/usr/bin/env python2.3 helps programs running everywhere, i.e. they > will work with people that installed python in /usr/local/bin for > instance. Hmm, after reading everyone's arguments, it seems wiser to use #!/usr/bin/python2.3 in order to avoid mixing with local python installs. -- Jérôme Marant
Re: python 2.2 to python 2.3 transition
On Tue, 2003-08-12 at 12:54, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Donovan Baarda wrote:
> > Using this the python package can "notify" all packages that depend on
> > it by calling dpkg-reconfigure on them;
>
> That would work for me too, of course.
>
> >> egrep "^install ok installed:[^:]*:.*$PYTHONXY([ ,]|$)" | \
>
> That regexp looks like it should look like this instead:
>
> >> egrep "^install ok installed:[^:]*:(|.*[ ,])$PYTHONXY([ ,]|$)" | \
>
> so that it doesn't find packages which depend on packages which just happend
> to end with $PYTHONXY. (Or perhaps you should rewrite that shell function in
> Python. ;-)
Note that there is currently a bug in dpkg-query where ${Depends} output
is prefixed with some binary garbage... this means your modification
will not match where $PYTHONXY is the first dependency.
I don't believe you could use python in this case... this code has to go
into the package "python"s postinst script.
--
Donovan Baarda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://minkirri.apana.org.au/~abo/
Re: python 2.2 to python 2.3 transition
Hi,
Donovan Baarda wrote:
> Note that there is currently a bug in dpkg-query where ${Depends} output
> is prefixed with some binary garbage... this means your modification
> will not match where $PYTHONXY is the first dependency.
>
Ouch.
> I don't believe you could use python in this case... this code has to go
> into the package "python"s postinst script.
So what? In postinst, python is already installed.
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: The quote was selected randomly. Really. | http://smurf.noris.de
--
:crumb: n. Two binary digits; a {quad}. Larger than a {bit}, smaller than
a {nybble}. Considered silly. Syn. {tayste}. General discussion of such
terms is under {nybble}.
pgpwdACvlUjn4.pgp
Description: signature
python transition summary
I've put a summary of packages needing a rebuild in a world-writable file at http://people.debian.org/~joss/python-list.txt Please mark your uploads (maintainer or non-maintainer) in this file (gluck:~joss/public_html/python-list.txt). This is probably the time to start NMU's for library packages. I'd like to add it is the perfect time to make sure all our python packages have correct dependencies and postinst/prerm. This is *far* from being the case: I've noticed many packages are being broken by the current transition, and many .py[co] compilations are useless, generally because of wrong dependencies. So please double-check your dependencies and ask on this list if you need help about them. Regards, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=
Re: #!/usr/bin/python2.3 vs #!/usr/bin/env python2.3
Here's my perspective on this : On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 10:10:57AM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote: | > #!/usr/bin/env python2.3 helps programs running everywhere, i.e. they | > will work with people that installed python in /usr/local/bin for | > instance. Use this if you are distributing your script/program to the world at large. | Hmm, after reading everyone's arguments, it seems wiser to use | #!/usr/bin/python2.3 in order to avoid mixing with local python | installs. Use this in a debian package. The difference: on $RANDOM_UNIX_SYSTEM you don't know that pythonX.Y is in /usr/bin, but on a debian system you do and on a debian system you'd rather not deal with other installations in $ENV. -D -- If Microsoft would build a car... ... Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no reason. You would have to pull over to the side of the road, close all of the car windows, shut it off, restart it, and reopen the windows before you could continue. For some reason you would simply accept this. http://dman13.dyndns.org/~dman/ pgpD8KXJcP9a2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: python 2.2 to python 2.3 transition
On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 12:38:16PM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote: | On Mon, 2003-08-11 at 22:03, Matthias Urlichs wrote: | > > Hrm, this could be achieved quite simply, /methinks. It needs little | > > changes in dh_python and some prerm/postinst stuff in the python package | > > (not the pythonX.Y package) to rebuild all .pyc's and .pyo's in this | > > directory upon upgrade. | > > | > > Matthias, do you think it is feasible ? | > | > Would work for me. /usr/lib/site-python is supposed to have "clean" python | > scripts only, so running compileall.py on all subdirectories thereof | > should pose no problem. | | The problem I have with it is it doesn't take into account programs with | python modules outside /usr/lib/site-python. Probably mailman is the | prime example. If you want more than one real-world example use zope and the zope-* add-ons. -D -- It took the computational power of three Commodore 64s to fly to the moon. It takes at least a 486 to run Windows 95. Something is wrong here. http://dman13.dyndns.org/~dman/ pgpshP3Eciert.pgp Description: PGP signature
python transition and python-tal
Hi, python-tal is maintained by the QA team so I thought I'd help and NMU it. I added a python2.3-tal package and it built correctly but the no-version package (python-tal) still depends upon python2.2-tal (I changed Build-depends-indep to python (>= 2.3), python (<< 2.4) ). Where did I miss the obvious ? Packages available on http://people.debian.org/~fpeters/python-tal/ Regards, Frederic pgpchdlApV6Ab.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: python transition and python-tal
Le mar 12/08/2003 à 16:45, Frederic Peters a écrit : > Hi, > > python-tal is maintained by the QA team so I thought I'd help and NMU > it. > > I added a python2.3-tal package and it built correctly but the > no-version package (python-tal) still depends upon python2.2-tal (I > changed Build-depends-indep to python (>= 2.3), python (<< 2.4) ). > > Where did I miss the obvious ? > > Packages available on http://people.debian.org/~fpeters/python-tal/ What version of python is installed on your system ? Your packages built fine on my system and made python-tal depend on python2.3-tal as expected. Regards, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=
Re: python transition and python-tal
Josselin Mouette wrote : > What version of python is installed on your system ? Your packages built > fine on my system and made python-tal depend on python2.3-tal as > expected. Great. I had python 2.3 installed but not yet as default python version (waiting for python-bsddb3). I don't have access to a chrooted environment for now to build the package; could you (or anybody else) upload the package ? Regards, Frederic
Re: python transition summary
Josselin Mouette writes: > I've put a summary of packages needing a rebuild in a world-writable > file at http://people.debian.org/~joss/python-list.txt > python-numarray-ext => updated but the new package misses python (>= 2.3), > python (<< 2.4) unneeded, as it depends on python-numarray. anyway, thanks for the summary! please could you update a timestamp of the last update? Matthias
Re: python transition and python-tal
Le mar 12/08/2003 à 18:52, Frederic Peters a écrit : > Josselin Mouette wrote : > > > What version of python is installed on your system ? Your packages built > > fine on my system and made python-tal depend on python2.3-tal as > > expected. > > Great. I had python 2.3 installed but not yet as default python > version (waiting for python-bsddb3). I don't have access to a > chrooted environment for now to build the package; could you (or > anybody else) upload the package ? It's uploading now. Regards, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=
Re-request for sponsor: python-albatross
Hi, This is my third or fourth attempt to find a sponsor for the python-albatross package. So far, I've been contacted by one developer who was interested in sponsoring the package; he never replied to my reply, however, so I assume he has other things to do at the moment. Meanwhile, I'm continuing my search for a sponsor. Before I resort to bribery, I'm going to try to speak convincingly about Albatross. At the same time, because I suspect there are people on the debian-python list that could be interested but don't read debian-mentors, I'm Cc'ing this mail to debian-python. Albatross is a very nice piece of software for developing small web applications. It's written in Python. Upstream activity seems to have accelerated during the summer and the atmosphere on the Albatross mailing list is very friendly and helpful, with the developers and users juggling ideas, advice and code as ideas, advice and code should be juggled. Recently, for example, a standalone, small HTTP server was introduced by a user, and Albatross now sports support for standalone application deployment in addition to regular CGI, FastCGI and mod_python application deployment with Apache. If you write anything from simple dynamic web pages to full-blown web applications, then you should really check out Albatross. If you'd like to try an approach that is different from PHP but still sensible when the application grows beyond what regular CGI can do, then Albatross may well be worth a look. And if, at the same time, you happen to be a Debian Developer, then please help me introduce this package into Debian. Packages can be found at http://people.paniq.net/~fabbe/debian/albatross/ and an ITP concerning Albatross is at http://bugs.debian.org/193574 The Albatross site is at http://www.object-craft.com.au/projects/albatross/ Thanks for your time, -- Fabian Fagerholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: python 2.2 -> python 2.3 transition
Joey Hess wrote: >Josip Rodin wrote: > > >>Am I the only one who has a disgusting reminiscence of netscape*.* packages >>every time python* is mentioned? :P >> >> > >Actually I'm more reminded of the perl* packages and the complete mess >that followed. And I keep expecting to see the same set of problems >affect python. > > > Well, I haven't had any python-related collisions from the pythonX.Y scheme... python (>= 2.2), python (< 2.3) I've seen, of course... it would be so much nicer if someone added debian support to distutils, though ;-) (*hint*)
Re: python 2.2 -> python 2.3 transition
On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 01:32:33PM -0400, Samuel Bronson wrote: > Well, I haven't had any python-related collisions from the pythonX.Y > scheme... python (>= 2.2), python (< 2.3) I've seen, of course... it > would be so much nicer if someone added debian support to distutils, > though ;-) (*hint*) Actually, all that have that are now uninstallable. Some important ones have that, such as libwxgtk2.4-python. Shouldn't they depend on python2.2 instead? -- John
Re: python 2.2 -> python 2.3 transition
On Wed, 2003-08-13 at 09:39, John Goerzen wrote: > On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 01:32:33PM -0400, Samuel Bronson wrote: > > Well, I haven't had any python-related collisions from the pythonX.Y > > scheme... python (>= 2.2), python (< 2.3) I've seen, of course... it > > would be so much nicer if someone added debian support to distutils, > > though ;-) (*hint*) > > Actually, all that have that are now uninstallable. Some important ones > have that, such as libwxgtk2.4-python. > > Shouldn't they depend on python2.2 instead No. There is a reason they are not installable... they don't work with python (2.3) The python-foo packages are there to ensure you can do; $ python >>> import foo The pythonX.Y-foo packages are there to ensure you can do; $ pythonX.Y >>> import foo The reason most of the python-foo packages have "Depends: python (>=2.2), python (<<2.3)" is because they only support the first case for python (2.2). They don't work for python (2.3), which is now in unstable. They need to be "fixed" before they will work with python (2.3), which is why they are currently not installable. Fortunately, most "python-foo" packages are simple wrappers that have "Depends: python2.2-foo", so they are very small and easy to "fix" for python (2.3) (changed to "Depends: python2.3-foo"). In the case of libwxgtk2.4-python, there is no libwxgtk2.4-pythonX.Y packages. There is only one package that supports python (2.2), and this will need to be fixed now that we have python (2.3). If the package maintainer so chooses, he could produce a libwxgtk2.4-python2.2 package for supporting python2.2, but that is up to him/her. During the transition from python (2.2) to python (2.3) most "python-foo" packages in unstable will be broken until they are "fixed". If you wish to install these packages install python (2.2) from testing. Testing will not transition to python (2.3) until all the python-foo packages are fixed. -- Donovan Baarda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://minkirri.apana.org.au/~abo/
