Python versions for Ubuntu 10.10 (Maverick Meerkat)
Now that the Ubuntu Developer Summit is over, I'll be able to catch up on this mailing list. However I wanted to take a moment to summarize the session we had on Python versions for Maverick Meerkat (Ubuntu 10.10). First, let me thank the DPL Stefano Zacchiroli for coming to UDS-M and representing the Debian community. It was really great meeting and having a chance to talk with him. He's encouraged me to apply for DD status and I think I'll take him up on that challenge. :) It's also wonderful to see the commitment he and Ubuntu Community Manager Jono Bacon have made in making our two communities real partners in all this fun and excellent work we're doing. My own personal principle for decisions regarding Python on Ubuntu are that we (Debian and Ubuntu) should always work together and try to reach consensus where possible. We can also recognize that Ubuntu and Debian may ultimately make different decisions, but they should be one of timing rather than substance. What I mean by that is that we can use the basic fact of our different release schedules to our advantage. With Ubuntu's time-based and LTS releases, we can often be more aggressive in our decisions, but always with a mind toward pushing work upstream so that everyone can benefit. I have to admit that I will not always know the best way to do that, and I'll look to you for help. Thanks especially go to Scott Kitterman who knows both communities well, is well versed in Python, and happens to live not far from me. (Time for a BACON PIG anyone? :) So, on to Python... I've started a wiki page which I'll use to collate all the work on Python versions for Ubuntu 10.10: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MaverickMeerkat/TechnicalOverview/Python In summary, we would really like Maverick to ship Python 2.6, 2.7, and 3.2 (beta) with Python 2.7 as the default. Because 3.2 will not be released upstream by then, we'll get pre-approval for SRUs to get us to Python 3.2 final when available. I think that because there are few libraries and applications that require Python 3, we can be relatively safe with that part of the decision. In order to switch to Python 2.7, we need to do some work first. We need to know how compatible the packages in main and universe are with Python 2.7. So to that end we're going to do several tests, gather data, and make a final decision based on that data. We came up with a requirement of 100% build and import success on Python 2.7 before Maverick feature freeze on August 12, 2010. We're going to start with a PPA on Launchpad to build up the Python 2.7 stack so that everyone can join in with testing and fixing build and import problems. We're also going to investigate ubuntuwire.com to help us out with this if Launchpad's build system isn't up to the task. I think we identified about 1200 packages that need to be rebuilt and Michael Vogt has a system for testing the importability of newly built packages. My plan is to automate as much of the work as possible so that we can re-use what we've built for future Python transition, and I hope that you'll help me ensure that this work is relevant and beneficial to Debian. The key thing to remember is that even if we cannot make it to Python 2.7 for Ubuntu 10.10, none of this work is wasted. We know that we'll all be on Python 2.7 sooner or later, so at the very least this will get us closer for Maverick+1, and lays the groundwork for squeeze+1. Cheers, -Barry signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Python versions for Ubuntu 10.10 (Maverick Meerkat)
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 11:38:23AM -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote: > First, let me thank the DPL Stefano Zacchiroli for coming to UDS-M and > representing the Debian community. It was really great meeting and having a > chance to talk with him. He's encouraged me to apply for DD status and I > think I'll take him up on that challenge. :) It's also wonderful to see the > commitment he and Ubuntu Community Manager Jono Bacon have made in making our > two communities real partners in all this fun and excellent work we're doing. I don't know how many Debian Python people are directly involved with Python upstream, but it would be fantastic to have someone in the intersection of both sets. Thanks. Kumar -- One tree to rule them all, One tree to find them, One tree to bring them all, and to itself bind them. -- Gavin Koch -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100518155206.gc6...@146653177.ece.utexas.edu
Re: Python versions for Ubuntu 10.10 (Maverick Meerkat)
On May 18, 2010, at 10:52 AM, Kumar Appaiah wrote: >On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 11:38:23AM -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote: >> First, let me thank the DPL Stefano Zacchiroli for coming to UDS-M and >> representing the Debian community. It was really great meeting and having a >> chance to talk with him. He's encouraged me to apply for DD status and I >> think I'll take him up on that challenge. :) It's also wonderful to see the >> commitment he and Ubuntu Community Manager Jono Bacon have made in making our >> two communities real partners in all this fun and excellent work we're doing. > >I don't know how many Debian Python people are directly involved with >Python upstream, but it would be fantastic to have someone in the >intersection of both sets. Not to exclude anyone, but I know that at least Matthias and myself are both core Python developers. -Barry signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Python versions for Ubuntu 10.10 (Maverick Meerkat)
"Barry Warsaw" wrote: >So, on to Python... > >I've started a wiki page which I'll use to collate all the work on Python >versions for Ubuntu 10.10: > >https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MaverickMeerkat/TechnicalOverview/Python > >In summary, we would really like Maverick to ship Python 2.6, 2.7, and 3.2 >(beta) with Python 2.7 as the default. Because 3.2 will not be released >upstream by then, we'll get pre-approval for SRUs to get us to Python 3.2 >final when available. I think that because there are few libraries and >applications that require Python 3, we can be relatively safe with that part >of the decision. > >In order to switch to Python 2.7, we need to do some work first. We need to >know how compatible the packages in main and universe are with Python 2.7. So >to that end we're going to do several tests, gather data, and make a final >decision based on that data. We came up with a requirement of 100% build and >import success on Python 2.7 before Maverick feature freeze on August 12, >2010. We're going to start with a PPA on Launchpad to build up the Python 2.7 >stack so that everyone can join in with testing and fixing build and import >problems. We're also going to investigate ubuntuwire.com to help us out with >this if Launchpad's build system isn't up to the task. I think we identified >about 1200 packages that need to be rebuilt and Michael Vogt has a system for >testing the importability of newly built packages. My plan is to automate as >much of the work as possible so that we can re-use what we've built for future >Python transition, and I hope that you'll help me ensure that this work is >relevant and beneficial to Debian. > >The key thing to remember is that even if we cannot make it to Python 2.7 for >Ubuntu 10.10, none of this work is wasted. We know that we'll all be on >Python 2.7 sooner or later, so at the very least this will get us closer for >Maverick+1, and lays the groundwork for squeeze+1. As is usual for discussions involving more than one person, we didn't all leave the room with quite the same understanding. I think 2.7 as default is a stretch goal at most. We want 2.7 as a supported version, but I didn't sense a lot of appetite for pushing hard for 2.7 as default. We did make the assumption that by the time 2.7 is released Debian will be in freeze. Another important point that I think deserves more emphasis is that we agreed that the testing done in Ubuntu for 2.7, will also be done against the Debian archive as well. There was a strong consensus in the group that Ubuntu should take great care to avoid doing anything that would accrue a technical debt that has to be paid in Debian (I found this a notable change from similar discussions in previous release cycles). Scott K -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f9dbb22-34eb-4eb8-8e1b-1fa063e2b...@email.android.com
Improved Python 3 Support In Debian
Last night I started looking at porting pyversions to Python 3 with the idea of providing a py3versions in python3-defaults. The plan would be to have python3.1 as the default and only supported version for Squeeze. The goal is to have the run time requirements for python3 not require python2. This is probably not something we can do fully for Squeeze (I didn't check if the Python 3 parts of POX's dh_python will be in Python 3 or not). This is consistent with the last round of proposed Python policy changes I sent out a few months ago. Once I have it done, I'll ask for review of the code and the relevant policy changes to make sure this is on a sensible path. Scott K -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/ade9721f-71ad-41c2-a22e-9a8e210b7...@email.android.com
Re: Python talks at DebConf
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Jakub Wilk wrote: > * anatoly techtonik , 2010-05-08, 07:16: >> >> Cover stdeb (anything else?), the reasons (if any) political and >> technical, why it (or anything else) can not be used instead >> unpythonic and unfamiliar make/debhelper stuff. It is not really >> helper if no one understands how it works, and it is confusing for >> non-C folks. > > The premise of your implication is false. Please translate to simple English. -- anatoly t. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktimoziizu3kbpqw0qdxkwbx478feehbgm86zh...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Python talks at DebConf
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: \>> 80kb of duplicated >> code (even 8Mb) doesn't worth wasted time for troubleshooting in 2010. >> It may be a reason for security, but why not just let packages >> register their used version in Debian registry and track it there? > > Because if there's a security hole in that code, you would need to make a lot > of > DSAs (see the recent problem with expat that was embedded in a lot of places). What's wrong with contacting upstream about security holes in their applications due to wrong libraries shipped? Shouldn't Debian collaborate with upstream sources that make this system so popular? Or the aim is to make DD jobs easier - "let's Debian be secure and do not care about upstream". The typical scenario (a source of all my rants) - jQuery bundled with Trac. Do you really think Trac developers should not receive notification from Debian if there will be a security bug in it? Do you think they should monitor the status of jQuery library themselves along with a couple of other python modules? > That's even worse than statically linking, since those embedded copies are > forks > of their original upstream many times. Something tells me and "static linking" is offtopic in this ML. -- anatoly t. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktimig61jzstj_igla3oqwffu5bavqfywkypsv...@mail.gmail.com
Join to team
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi , i want to join to python-modules and python-apps team . I want to help team to maintain more and more usefule package. currently i prepare a simple package call pycalverter. my alioth username is : lxsameer-guest i would be glad if you let me in . thanks a lot . Sameer Rahamani -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJL8vpMAAoJELH0x7JH7CgPhWUIAIi2iSJ9tqamWF3luDU/+Jxd D8Sct/vjiYWmBYnyetHP5yADnj+1AXA3iBhpE+jbZz59Sm/A2l6lUl+82Au/8xY9 OWQJajvX0MnX9Q6ZN5woVEAoMWYHN0zMZMs1+mWJj/gbkxAbuAFuzAP8H8atwdAk fGcCD7iT9RKtgxzoSRVe+b9t1iUMRdZwzTkQZJ6BeM12QsptuAqA8FIYSBurD6M8 8eRlLLoUDBlEkAylx1EfwvnFi2/w+R55LyO5OSrxkRu0nRxuyf0C1/JHXObSayD2 AWI7PM89Nb75WJCeI9zBfyR04qIobx2g9mrBn6nb7ii5zQ2iriF0912kzSjk8Oo= =vsiC -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktinlmir3yh0rfk9uaytkbgmc_4plgya24x4q3...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Python talks at DebConf
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: > > Why I think derivatives should not add new versions? > * because it's mostly chasing numbers - I'm pretty sure there are not > more than 10 packages that require Python >= 2.6 and are not easy to > port to 2.5 in Ubuntu 10.04, Backporting is a waste of time, Python 2.6 adds new tasty useful functions that I use for my packages and do not want to support Python 2.5. I won't add them to Debian, because: 1. No Python 2.6 2. I still do not know how 3. Non-Python toolchain is obscure 4. I do not feel like to wasting time learning Debian Policy Tomes 5. I already know virtualenv > * because when you have to convert hundreds of packages, without > checking them carefully (most packages in Ubuntu don't have maintainer > assigned to them) you end up with "fixes" like: > - disabling tests, Which tests can fail on newer Python versions? I though newer Pythons are backward compatible, except Py3k. > - breaking perfectly valid XS-Python-Version or debian/pyversions, Sorry, I am not DD. What is this perfection for? > - hardcoding "-I /usr/include/python2.6" in debian/rules (yes, 2.5 was > still in supported when I saw it) > or no fixes at all (>100 packages that FTBFS, ignoring broken > XS-Python-Version or debian/pyversions, packages that build > correctly, pass all tests... and do not work[1]), Looks like a major failure of Debian to be a common base for derivative distributions for Python apps. > * because new version often means changes in helper tools (cdbs, > debhelper, python-central, python-support) and you're risking the > situation where we will not like your implementation and will rewrite > them in incompatible way (and that will mean you will have to rewrite > them again), That's why helper tools should be Python based and crossplatform, like the Python itself. -- anatoly t. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktik50jnr1irx5go15m0znilqmxrce_nr9-mrj...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Python talks at DebConf
2010/5/10 Piotr Ożarowski : > > I had to explain many times (mostly to Pylons users) why packages not > touched by Ubuntu developers are not working on Ubuntu, I know the pain. Why...? -- anatoly t. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktilqtm1bzhq_1jrqhdmctam8g2wt0wdwzvdtu...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Join to team
[Sameer Rahmani, 2010-05-18] > Hi , i want to join to python-modules and python-apps team . > I want to help team to maintain more and more usefule package. > currently i prepare a simple package call pycalverter. you're in DPMT, welcome :-) -- Piotr Ożarowski Debian GNU/Linux Developer www.ozarowski.pl www.griffith.cc www.debian.org GPG Fingerprint: 1D2F A898 58DA AF62 1786 2DF7 AEF6 F1A2 A745 7645 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Python talks at DebConf
Hello anatoly, I'm quite tired of your emails where you're only capable of attacking without being able to provide valuable contributions to Debian. from my POV, if you don't like know we do things, then help us fix them and STOP complaining; otherwise, simply choose another distribution and leave us alone. On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 22:42, anatoly techtonik wrote: > On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: >> >> Why I think derivatives should not add new versions? >> * because it's mostly chasing numbers - I'm pretty sure there are not >> more than 10 packages that require Python >= 2.6 and are not easy to >> port to 2.5 in Ubuntu 10.04, > > Backporting is a waste of time, Python 2.6 adds new tasty useful > functions that I use for my packages and do not want to support Python > 2.5. I won't add them to Debian, because: > > 1. No Python 2.6 > 2. I still do not know how > 3. Non-Python toolchain is obscure > 4. I do not feel like to wasting time learning Debian Policy Tomes > 5. I already know virtualenv So, given you're not interested in debian, why are you bothering us? on the other hand, if you are interested in debian, why don't you stop keep complaining and start giving help? for example by completing the transition from 2.5 to 2.6? Of course, if it's not a too big waste of your previous time... >> - breaking perfectly valid XS-Python-Version or debian/pyversions, > > Sorry, I am not DD. What is this perfection for? what question is this? if you know know what those concepts are, just google for them; if you know what they are, change their values just because it "seems" to fix the package is the wrong way to go. >> - hardcoding "-I /usr/include/python2.6" in debian/rules (yes, 2.5 was >> still in supported when I saw it) >> or no fixes at all (>100 packages that FTBFS, ignoring broken >> XS-Python-Version or debian/pyversions, packages that build >> correctly, pass all tests... and do not work[1]), > > Looks like a major failure of Debian to be a common base for > derivative distributions for Python apps. So help us fix it: complaining is not an option. >> * because new version often means changes in helper tools (cdbs, >> debhelper, python-central, python-support) and you're risking the >> situation where we will not like your implementation and will rewrite >> them in incompatible way (and that will mean you will have to rewrite >> them again), > > That's why helper tools should be Python based and crossplatform, like > the Python itself. No, helper tools must be compatible with Debian package build system, python happens to be the programming language of some of our packages, like java, C, perl and tons of others; oh, make and perl are cross-platform too. Regards, -- Sandro Tosi (aka morph, morpheus, matrixhasu) My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/ Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktikdar8nrhnrrkfu9ki9jelhog8geybcen0ee...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Python talks at DebConf
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 9:57 PM, Sandro Tosi wrote: > > Indeed, that's what we expect from the python maintainer: > > - understand what changes between to major release > - prepare a draft for the transition, checking packages that brake > (reporting bugs and hopefully patches) > - get consensus from the project (release team for formal ACK on > starting the transition and from python community to support the > transition with uploads and so) > > none of that has happened in the past. > >> Why is upgrading to a new default Python so difficult, more than 19 >> months after 2.6 was released? > > because we have a quite "original" python maintainer, that doesn't > care at all about Debian. > > On the other hand, he does care (to a certain point) about Ubuntu > using the latest python version possible, of course not handling all > the problems that that version can cause. > > Ah, just for the sake clarity: the Debian and Ubuntu python > maintainers are the same person. It is easy to blame one person. Let's say Debian doesn't have any Python maintainers at all and the person from Ubuntu has to do the job. Anyway, it is a fail of Debian to provide a workflow that a person (or a group of people) is capable to follow to make us (Python folks) happy about maintaining Debian servers that host our Python applications. >> Is the problem using an old version of a package while the more recent >> upstream versions have already fixed the compatibility problems? > > yep, sometimes, but there are also new upstream release that drop > support to a version to add support to a newer one, and we have to > support them both. You need a Debian compat Python layer then. Look at SCons for an example. >> I apologize if all this has already been discussed, but I hope that > > no problem. Me should apologize too. >> the future transition to 2.7 and eventually to 3.x could be less >> labour-intensive than the one to 2.6. > > Well, we hope several things will change on the python side of Debian; > let's see if our dreams will come true. Do you have a roadmap to see if this hope should be shared or abandoned? -- anatoly t. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktimoxg_cywioydwen01x-kyxpwlkdpfkcfm5z...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Join to team
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 thanks a lot , i'll do my best -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJL8wA1AAoJELH0x7JH7CgPmbcH/0CTsPze+wCZLVvI9YEonyfQ wqgqeQ4oWT8Ut2IiKUISw1cLLfeUhLWPQwWe3FkJ4gnAa7kMGMM617qw9DCfaSfd yjBB1oouhsonDjZyZD92/KunVOcFqHko2aDk7B7Tnb+vbOziPtpZkIMH82p9zYPX 6zMtJ9isxxi9dis4DBoxQJ/twWMHvVZqukj/LAXqnQL5zcNg8a8xjKlPm2VqkMi7 P44mPzsz45zO9trOHwgErxVQXI+Q0K8XPo8o8QSbeEJ5/byT8jI79Mrkdw8Pm0WN aRIClnybtHHbgwBFRutb3XZXysWyLb8y9M3yIKlR2tA0RHXOKJ/Ih8cx1fuiRJA= =VFHJ -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktikfraphfurmdcuetd9x9nu7-uvjq_pa_l3jd...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Python talks at DebConf
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 23:01, anatoly techtonik wrote: > On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 9:57 PM, Sandro Tosi wrote: >> >> Indeed, that's what we expect from the python maintainer: >> >> - understand what changes between to major release >> - prepare a draft for the transition, checking packages that brake >> (reporting bugs and hopefully patches) >> - get consensus from the project (release team for formal ACK on >> starting the transition and from python community to support the >> transition with uploads and so) >> >> none of that has happened in the past. >> >>> Why is upgrading to a new default Python so difficult, more than 19 >>> months after 2.6 was released? >> >> because we have a quite "original" python maintainer, that doesn't >> care at all about Debian. >> >> On the other hand, he does care (to a certain point) about Ubuntu >> using the latest python version possible, of course not handling all >> the problems that that version can cause. >> >> Ah, just for the sake clarity: the Debian and Ubuntu python >> maintainers are the same person. > > It is easy to blame one person. Let's say Debian doesn't have any > Python maintainers at all and the person from Ubuntu has to do the > job. Python interpreters maintainer is the same person in Debian and Ubuntu, Matthias Klose, so your phase is a non-sense. Matthias cares only of Ubuntu because he gains his money from Canonical, the commercial wing over Ubuntu, and leaves to Debian only a minimum amount of time and attention (see python2.5 v2.5.5 upload, that didn't even installs). > Anyway, it is a fail of Debian to provide a workflow that a > person (or a group of people) is capable to follow to make us (Python > folks) happy about maintaining Debian servers that host our Python > applications. I don't get what you're trying to express here... Either you package your applications for debian, and so you have to dig into debian packaging details, or else if you need 2.6 and you can't have it, than blame the python maintainer that's unable/unwilling to support users requests, not the debian community (yes, debian-python is not the right place to complain about python2.6 not being in unstable for more than a year since its release, for example) that faces the same problem of an unrensponsive maintainer as you do. >>> Is the problem using an old version of a package while the more recent >>> upstream versions have already fixed the compatibility problems? >> >> yep, sometimes, but there are also new upstream release that drop >> support to a version to add support to a newer one, and we have to >> support them both. > > You need a Debian compat Python layer then. Look at SCons for an example. I don't think so. >>> the future transition to 2.7 and eventually to 3.x could be less >>> labour-intensive than the one to 2.6. >> >> Well, we hope several things will change on the python side of Debian; >> let's see if our dreams will come true. > > Do you have a roadmap to see if this hope should be shared or abandoned? see http://bugs.debian.org/573745 Regards, -- Sandro Tosi (aka morph, morpheus, matrixhasu) My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/ Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktin1gmg3zuptw-rheogzvukyocnqh-8brhxln...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Python talks at DebConf
2010/5/11 Piotr Ożarowski : > > Why am I mentioning Ubuntu at all? Because all decisions about Python in > Debian are made there. > > Do you still want me to answer your questions or is it clear already why > I am acting as an asshole? I can't see an asshole action so fat. The thing that troubles me is that there is some conflict between Ubuntu and Debian and it affects developers like me that not only have to care about intricateness of Python packaging, but also about Debian/Ubuntu stuff. -- anatoly t. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktilxvkf23jrheiwyrxdxs_nfyqo-yxtfamfi_...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Python versions for Ubuntu 10.10 (Maverick Meerkat)
On May 18, 2010, at 02:30 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: >As is usual for discussions involving more than one person, we didn't all >leave the room with quite the same understanding. I think 2.7 as default is a >stretch goal at most. We want 2.7 as a supported version, but I didn't sense >a lot of appetite for pushing hard for 2.7 as default. These things happen. :) Still, I'd like to make 2.7 for Maverick the goal, but of course, we'll obviously make that decision only once we've gather enough information. >We did make the assumption that by the time 2.7 is released Debian will be in >freeze. Yep. I heard rumors of a June-ish freeze, but I guess nothing official has yet been decided. >Another important point that I think deserves more emphasis is that we agreed >that the testing done in Ubuntu for 2.7, will also be done against the Debian >archive as well. There was a strong consensus in the group that Ubuntu should >take great care to avoid doing anything that would accrue a technical debt >that has to be paid in Debian (I found this a notable change from similar >discussions in previous release cycles). I completely agree. I've added some emphasis to the previously mentioned wiki page. Thanks, -Barry signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Python versions for Ubuntu 10.10 (Maverick Meerkat)
Hi Barry, thanks for your interest for Debian too :) On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 23:50, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On May 18, 2010, at 02:30 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: >>We did make the assumption that by the time 2.7 is released Debian will be in >>freeze. Even if it won't be in freeze yet, it will soon to be, so it doesn't change that much > Yep. I heard rumors of a June-ish freeze, but I guess nothing official has > yet been decided. Nothing written in stone, but near june yes. Funny that it's the python2.6 transition what's currently delaying the freeze.. I don't think we can include 2.7 in Debian supported versions for squeeze, maybe just as a "playground" for squeeze+1. >>Another important point that I think deserves more emphasis is that we agreed >>that the testing done in Ubuntu for 2.7, will also be done against the Debian >>archive as well. There was a strong consensus in the group that Ubuntu should >>take great care to avoid doing anything that would accrue a technical debt >>that has to be paid in Debian (I found this a notable change from similar >>discussions in previous release cycles). > > I completely agree. I've added some emphasis to the previously mentioned wiki > page. Ideally transitions should start in Debian and lend "for free" in ubuntu, but I understand that for 10.10 we can't make Debian the environment for 2.7 transition :) Cheers, -- Sandro Tosi (aka morph, morpheus, matrixhasu) My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/ Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktimvfglgzbuvdyuhvowuvfqnnnwkn0fzykxfb...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Python talks at DebConf
anatoly techtonik (18/05/2010): > Please translate to simple English. This was simple English, even French guys understood it… Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
