Re: Bug#543689: please upload python2.6 to unstable
Hi, On Tue, 12.01.2010 at 13:44:28 +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 12:21:34PM +0100, Bastian Venthur wrote: > > The information is there, it is unfortunately just well hidden: > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2009/12/msg00207.html > > Ahh, that's a good catch. I can not tell whether the technical arguing > is correct although I am not a member of the Debian Zope team, I can say this about the technical aspects, from my experience of working with Zope: * Older versions of Zope 2 up to 2.11.x absolutely require Python 2.4. * Newer versions of Zope 2, starting with 2.12, afair require Python 2.6. Also, Plone (very important for me) requires python-imaging for the corresponding Python version. I have private backported packages for 2.6 on Lenny which I could upload to eg. p.d.o, but not yet managed to create a corresponding python-imaging. Kind regards, --Toni++ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Bug#543689: please upload python2.6 to unstable
Hi, I have to make a small correction: On Thu, 14.01.2010 at 10:44:53 +0100, Toni Mueller wrote: > * Newer versions of Zope 2, starting with 2.12, afair require Python > 2.6. Zope 2.12 requires a recent Python 2.5, but Plone 4.0, running on top of Zope 2.12, requires Python 2.6. Sorry for the confusion. Kind regards, --Toni++ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
direct-changes-in-diff-but-no-patch-system foo.egg-info/SOURCES.txt
Howdy all, I'm getting a Lintian tag reported on some of my Python packages: direct-changes-in-diff-but-no-patch-system foo.egg-info/SOURCES.txt Now, this is a “pedantic”-level tag, but it does seem valid: the SOURCES.txt file is in fact modified from the original upstream source. It is done by the build process, specifically the Setuptools ‘egg_info’ step:: = […] dh_auto_install running install running build running build_py running install_lib […] running egg_info writing requirements to foo.egg-info/requires.txt writing foo.egg-info/PKG-INFO writing top-level names to foo.egg-info/top_level.txt writing dependency_links to foo.egg-info/dependency_links.txt reading manifest file 'foo.egg-info/SOURCES.txt' reading manifest template 'MANIFEST.in' warning: no files found matching 'TODO' writing manifest file 'foo.egg-info/SOURCES.txt' Copying foo.egg-info to /tmp/buildd/foo-1.5.2/debian/foo/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/foo-1.2.3.egg-info […] = Can I prevent this from happening, perhaps by an option to the Setuptools procedure? If not, can I recover from this result during the Debian packaging? I am loth to override the Lintian tag, because I agree that it's valid. I would rather fix the behaviour causing it. -- \ “We can't depend for the long run on distinguishing one | `\ bitstream from another in order to figure out which rules | _o__) apply.” —Eben Moglen, _Anarchism Triumphant_, 1999 | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: direct-changes-in-diff-but-no-patch-system foo.egg-info/SOURCES.txt
Ben Finney (15/01/2010): > Now, this is a “pedantic”-level tag, but it does seem valid: the > SOURCES.txt file is in fact modified from the original upstream > source. Just rm it in clean? > Can I prevent this from happening, perhaps by an option to the > Setuptools procedure? If not, can I recover from this result during > the Debian packaging? IIRC, that setuptools stuff should just be able to recreate that file if it doesn't exist? Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: direct-changes-in-diff-but-no-patch-system foo.egg-info/SOURCES.txt
Cyril Brulebois writes: > Ben Finney (15/01/2010): > > Now, this is a “pedantic”-level tag, but it does seem valid: the > > SOURCES.txt file is in fact modified from the original upstream > > source. > > Just rm it in clean? But that would also result in a change from the original upstream source. No? > > Can I prevent this from happening, perhaps by an option to the > > Setuptools procedure? If not, can I recover from this result during > > the Debian packaging? > > IIRC, that setuptools stuff should just be able to recreate that file > if it doesn't exist? But AIUI, the modifications are needed in the resulting installation. The build process adds extra entries to the file, that weren't already there in the source version of the file; a ‘setup.cfg’ entry in the case of ‘python-daemon’ which I just examined. -- \ “Kissing a smoker is like licking an ashtray.” —anonymous | `\ | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
