Re: Switching to git
On 03/06/2011 11:46 PM, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote: > moreover, while talking about tags, in GIT some symbols we use for > debian versioning (e.g. ~ and :) are not allowed in tags, so they get > replaced (with '%' and '.' for above with git-buildpackage). That is > the only kind of cons I see in switching to GIT. > >>lost the comfort of manipulate/move/... all the source package with a >>simple "commit/mv/checkout/...". > > mr was already brought to the attention I think providing some script using mr for those who want to use it is fine, but it should not be required to use it. >> #. I (and I suppose many others) have enough experience with >> svn-buildpackage but less with other buildpackage tools based on other >> CVMs. > git-buildpackage is very similar and actually inspired iirc by > svn-buildpackage AND IT IS WRITTEN IN PYTHON!!! ;-) And the git-buildpackage upstream is sane and quick on fixing bugs. Definitely the best idea imho. -- Bernd ZeimetzDebian GNU/Linux Developer http://bzed.dehttp://www.debian.org GPG Fingerprints: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F -- 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/4d8317f4.2030...@bzed.de
XB-Python-Version in the policy
Hi The wiki page at http://wiki.debian.org/Python/PyCentral2DhPython2 tells you to remove the XB-Python-Version lines in debian/control but the python policy still says they are required in section 2.3. I presume this is outdated in the policy? If so any reason why this isn't updated? Regards Floris -- Debian GNU/Linux -- The Power of Freedom www.debian.org | www.gnu.org | www.kernel.org -- 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/AANLkTimCRQF3VO9LZKqFYAqmr=3tnmy+mum+_eg7p...@mail.gmail.com
Re: XB-Python-Version in the policy
Floris Bruynooghe wrote: Hi The wiki page at http://wiki.debian.org/Python/PyCentral2DhPython2 tells you to remove the XB-Python-Version lines in debian/control but the python policy still says they are required in section 2.3. I presume this is outdated in the policy? If so any reason why this isn't updated? Regards Floris -- Debian GNU/Linux -- The Power of Freedom www.debian.org | www.gnu.org | www.kernel.org -- 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/AANLkTimCRQF3VO9LZKqFYAqmr=3tnmy+mum+_eg7p...@mail.gmail.com It's on my list for the next update to remove it. Scott K
Re: XB-Python-Version in the policy
Hi Floris, On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 22:42, Floris Bruynooghe wrote: > Hi > > The wiki page at http://wiki.debian.org/Python/PyCentral2DhPython2 > tells you to remove the XB-Python-Version lines in debian/control but > the python policy still says they are required in section 2.3. I > presume this is outdated in the policy? yes, the python policy is outdated on this matter. 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/aanlktimsfhrolugeuttu2d53wp_yfvnwte8tnlfn4...@mail.gmail.com
Re: RFS: pycxx (updated package) + feedback wanted
On 09/03/11 20:10, Julian Taylor wrote: > On 03/06/2011 06:48 PM, Julian Taylor wrote: >> Dear mentors, >> >> I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 6.2.0-6 >> of my package "pycxx". >> >> It builds these binary packages: >> python-cxx - A Set of facilities to extend Python with C++ >> python-cxx-dev - A Set of facilities to extend Python with C++ >> python3-cxx - A Set of facilities to extend Python3 with C++ >> python3-cxx-dev - A Set of facilities to extend Python3 with C++ >> >> The upload would fix these bugs: 611061 >> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/pycxx/+bug/730144 >> >> This is a minimal change upload to fix a bug currently occurring in >> ubuntu natty (which is in feature freeze). >> The lintian warning build-depends-on-python-dev-with-no-arch-any should >> thus be ignored (see below). >> I'm not sure why I get this warning: changelog-should-mention-qa >> >> I plan to package the new upstream 6.2.3 when it is released. >> In this respect I also want ask for comments on this mail by me: >> http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2011/02/msg00299.html >> >> The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: >> - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/pycxx >> - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable >> main contrib non-free >> - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/pycxx/pycxx_6.2.0-6.dsc >> >> I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. >> >> Kind regards >> Julian Taylor > > ping. > 6.2.3 was released shortly so some feedback on > http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2011/02/msg00299.html is highly > appreciated. > > Best Regards, > Julian Taylor > ping #3. Still the same one line change + adoption. I have also placed the package under the python modules team (although it technically is no module). I'll just summarise the situation of this package and my plans again: PyCXX is a library which can be used to create python extentions in C++ similar to boost python and swig (but in a different way). reverse build depends are: - pysvn (O) - freecad (- python-matplotlib (embedded #613818)) The package currently consists of a normal package and a -dev package for python 2 and 3. The non-dev packages are empty and just contain a dummy __init__.py doing nothing. As PyCXX is a library and no python module I think the package it should be renamed to something like libpycxx/libpy3cxx. A problem is that upstream only ships the raw source files without a build system to compile a library out of them. A patch was rejected (http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=3177349&group_id=3180&atid=353180). Thus I see following futures for the package: - rename the package and patch it to build a static library (and possibly also a shared library, which would imply maintaining abi compatibility without upstream support, *not good*) - rename package but remain shipping only source files. This has the drawback that there now is a lib package which is not providing a library in /usr/lib. It might confuse people. - only remove the empty packages and stick with present packaging for the -dev - don't change anything in this respect in any case I'll modernise the package to newest standards (format 3.0, DEP3, DEP5 etc.) providing someone would sponsor it. Any kind of feedback is highly appreciated. Best Regards, Julian Taylor signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Python Policy Updates
Today's mail on XB-Python-Version motivates me to send out an overdue call for inputs on further changes to the Python policy. I know that needs to go. What else needs doing? Personally I'd like to concentrate on getting policy for Python 3 to the point that it's possible to produce a correct module or extension package based on what's in the policy without explicitly requiring a helper of any kind. I think dh_python3 is the right helper to have and it's good to use it, but I think policy should fully describe what someone needs to do. I'd particularly appreciate inputs from everyone on this topic. Thanks, Scott K signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Python Policy Updates
On Friday, March 18, 2011 10:23:05 pm Scott Kitterman wrote: > Today's mail on XB-Python-Version motivates me to send out an overdue call > for inputs on further changes to the Python policy. I know that needs to > go. > > What else needs doing? > > Personally I'd like to concentrate on getting policy for Python 3 to the > point that it's possible to produce a correct module or extension package > based on what's in the policy without explicitly requiring a helper of any > kind. I think dh_python3 is the right helper to have and it's good to use > it, but I think policy should fully describe what someone needs to do. > I'd particularly appreciate inputs from everyone on this topic. > > Thanks, > > Scott K I went through and did a bit of clarification plus added more Python 3 specifics. I don't think it will be controversial. You can find the proposed diff here: http://alioth.debian.org/scm/loggerhead/pkg-python/python-defaults- debian/revision/200 Comments welcome/encouraged, plus additional changes. 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/201103182352.50329.deb...@kitterman.com
