Python-related WNPP packages

[Seo Sanghyeon]

Here's a summary of Python-related packages listed on WNPP. Perhaps you
may find it useful.

#173879 leo-editor: Outlining editor and literate programming
#215367 pylibpcap: Python binding to libpcap
#215804 ply: Lex/yacc for Python
#262161 ironpython: Python implementation on .NET
#265585 bitpim: Access/manipulate cell phone data
#277426 flumotion: Streaming media server using GStreamer
#279422 nltk: Natural language processing library
#308148 bubnbros: Bubble Bobble clone with network play
#310165 bkchem: Draw/edit chemical drawings
#314541 buildbot: Automate build on multiple platforms
#317303 myghty: Templating system following HTML::Mason
#321788 cgkit: Rich 3D graphics toolkit
#323398 networkx: Graph(as in vertex and edge) library
#329323 monsterz: Puzzle game like Bejeweled
#338382 formencode: Web form generation and validation

Seo Sanghyeon


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: .egg in Debian summary?

[Bob Tanner]

Bob Tanner  real-time.com> writes:

> >> I don't think Debian should use the egg structure.

> Read and re-read the complete thread regarding .eggs in Debian and I cannot
> tell if any progress has been made.

> As "just a package maintainer" I was looking for the "options" to move
> forward. 

> 1. Do nothing, go with the status quo as documented in the Debian python
> policy, which is no .egg's and unpackage everything into a sub-directory of
> site-packages.
> 
> 2. Investigate easydeb 
> 
> 3. Using Phillip's .egg-info solution
> 
> 
> Any others?

Re-approaching this topic. I'm still trying to get TurboGears (TG) packages 
and it requires .egg support.

Any progress on the technical direction Debian will take regarding .eggs?





-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

python2.3/python2.4/python packages

[Pavel Šimerda]

On 2006-02-01 21:20, Bob Tanner wrote:
> Pavel ?imerda wrote:
> > Hi people
> > I debian/testing there's a deb package called just 'kid'. It's a very
> > nice templating system for python.
> >
> > Debian's package 'kid' is for python2.3... so I'd maybe prefer calling it
> > python2.3-kid.
> >
> > And there's no python2.4 version of this package...
> > Although it's easy to install it using python2.4 setup.py install... it
> > doesn't install 2.4's scripts properly.
> >
> > Pavel
>
> Officially, wait for DD to push it
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=338276

So it means debian's default version of python is 2.3 so everybody will 
use python 2.3 if he wants things working?

At first look I thought python packages in debian are called 
python2.3-packagename and python2.4-packagename. And that there's a 
metapackage python-packagename that requires the 2.3 version installed.

Now I see this is not so with all packages and it is hard to see which 
packages are present in python2.3 and missing in python2.4. 

would it be so difficult to rename the packages according to this scheme?

Examples:

I'll return to the package kid... what I would expect is:
* the package would be python2.3-kid instead of just 'kid'
* meta package python-kid would depend on python2.3-kid
* meta package kid would depend on python-kid (for backwards compatibility)
(* later there could be a new package called python2.4-kid)

Then there's also package python-wxgtk2.6:
* as it's actually python2.3 version, I would rename it python2.3-wxgtk2.6
* metapackage python-wxgtk2.6 depending on python2.3-wxgtk2.6
* what about python-wxgtk (?)
(* again, we would be prepared for python2.4-wxgtk2.6)


So... what do debian folks think about it?

Pavel


> Unofficially
>
> deb ftp://ftp.real-time.com/linux/real-time-debpool sid custom main
> deb-src ftp://ftp.real-time.com/linux/real-time-debpool sid custom main
I am now running unstable...
>
> --
> Bob Tanner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  | Phone : (952)943-8700
> http://www.real-time.com, Minnesota, Linux | Fax   : (952)943-8500
> Key fingerprint = AB15 0BDF BCDE 4369 5B42  1973 7CF1 A709 2CC1 B288


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: python2.3/python2.4/python packages

[Derrick Hudson]

On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 10:57:50PM +0100, Pavel Šimerda wrote:

| So it means debian's default version of python is 2.3 so everybody will 
| use python 2.3 if he wants things working?

That depends ... if you need some 3rd party package/module that debian
built only for 2.3 then yes, but if all the package/modules that you
need have python2.4 builds in debian then you can use 2.4.

| At first look I thought python packages in debian are called 
| python2.3-packagename and python2.4-packagename. And that there's a 
| metapackage python-packagename that requires the 2.3 version installed.
| 
| Now I see this is not so with all packages and it is hard to see which 
| packages are present in python2.3 and missing in python2.4. 

See the Python Policy for the various circumstances for each
arrangement.

| would it be so difficult to rename the packages according to this scheme?

For some it isn't, for some it is.

[...]
| Then there's also package python-wxgtk2.6:
| * as it's actually python2.3 version, I would rename it python2.3-wxgtk2.6
| * metapackage python-wxgtk2.6 depending on python2.3-wxgtk2.6
| * what about python-wxgtk (?)
| (* again, we would be prepared for python2.4-wxgtk2.6)

I haven't built wx, but I can imagine that it would not be trivial.
The maintainer chose to only build one variation, and so it is only
for the default version (python 2.3) and doesn't specify that version
in the package name.  If you were to simultaneously build a python 2.4
version, then that naming would be appropriate.

At this point we really just need to move the default to 2.4.  2.4 has
been available for a rather long time now.

-D

PS  I am aware of several factors (including C++ and other
transitions) that resulted in not starting a python transition
sooner.  Regardless, 2.4 isn't "new" anymore and ought to be the
default.  I look forward to seeing this happen :-).

-- 
>Linux is not user-friendly.
It -is- user-friendly.  It is not ignorant-friendly and idiot-friendly.
(Seen somewhere on the net.)
 
www: http://dman13.dyndns.org/~dman/jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Sorry, but there's a whole new generation of Debian developers here that
> simply won't develop anything in perl, just because perl looks too
> complex and cryptic to us. Now, with bash, perl and python, we can deal
> with the scripting needs for at least a few releases; trying to
> anticipate what will happen later is pure speculation.

I'm in that category too.  Perl has always looked crazy to me.
Scheme, anyone?


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]