Re: Bug#653650: ipython: Please depend on "python (>= 2.7) | python-argparse"
I will be able to look into it only in Jan 2nd week. If there is consensus, please feel free to change it. On Friday, December 30, 2011, Julian Taylor wrote: > tags 653650 + wontfix > thanks > > On 12/30/2011 12:29 AM, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > Source: ipython > > Version: 0.11-2 > > Severity: normal > > > > The unconditional dependency on python-argparse always pulls in > python2.6. > > > > argparse was included in python2.7 > > > > Please change the argparse dependency to > >python (>= 2.7) | python-argparse > > > > The same change also makes sense for the build dependencies. > > > > > > This will not install python-argparse needed for the 2.6 variants. > The only really satisfying option is adding explicit ipython2.6 packages > which I'm not going to do that as 2.6 will disappear at some point and > packaging is complex enough as is. > > It is my opinion that argparse should revert the 2.6 only change instead > of forcing everyone else to update their packages for no valid reason. > The better way to phase out python-argparse is to wait until python2.6 > removal and then let python provide it (like ubuntu did). > To get rid of the harmless pkg-ressources warning one could remove the > 2.7 symlinks from the package. > > -- Ritesh Raj Sarraf RESEARCHUT - http://www.researchut.com "Necessity is the mother of invention."
Re: Bug#653650: ipython: Please depend on "python (>= 2.7) | python-argparse"
I will be able to look into it only in Jan 2nd week. If there is consensus, please feel free to change it. On Friday, December 30, 2011, Julian Taylor wrote: > tags 653650 + wontfix > thanks > > On 12/30/2011 12:29 AM, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > Source: ipython > > Version: 0.11-2 > > Severity: normal > > > > The unconditional dependency on python-argparse always pulls in > python2.6. > > > > argparse was included in python2.7 > > > > Please change the argparse dependency to > >python (>= 2.7) | python-argparse > > > > The same change also makes sense for the build dependencies. > > > > > > This will not install python-argparse needed for the 2.6 variants. > The only really satisfying option is adding explicit ipython2.6 packages > which I'm not going to do that as 2.6 will disappear at some point and > packaging is complex enough as is. > > It is my opinion that argparse should revert the 2.6 only change instead > of forcing everyone else to update their packages for no valid reason. > The better way to phase out python-argparse is to wait until python2.6 > removal and then let python provide it (like ubuntu did). > To get rid of the harmless pkg-ressources warning one could remove the > 2.7 symlinks from the package. > > -- Ritesh Raj Sarraf RESEARCHUT - http://www.researchut.com "Necessity is the mother of invention."
Mysterious double python dependency
Hello,
When creating the S3QL package, I somehow get a dependency on both
python and python2.7:
Depends: python (>= 2.6.6-7~), [...], python2.7
This seems to come from the python:Depends substitution variable:
python:Depends=python, python (>= 2.6.6-7~), python (>= 2.6), python-apsw,
python-pycryptopp, python-llfuse, python-argparse, python-lzma, python2.7
The debian/control file says:
X-Python-Version: >= 2.6
Build-Depends: python-dev (>= 2.6.6-3~),
Depends: ${misc:Depends},
${python:Depends},
${shlibs:Depends},
${sphinxdoc:Depends},
and after the
(http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/python-apps/packages/s3ql/trunk/debian/)
Does anyone have a suggestion how to find out where this dependency
comes from?
Best,
-Nikolaus
--
»Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.«
PGP fingerprint: 5B93 61F8 4EA2 E279 ABF6 02CF A9AD B7F8 AE4E 425C
--
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/87lipuqefk@inspiron.ap.columbia.edu
Re: Mysterious double python dependency
* Nikolaus Rath , 2011-12-30, 10:14: When creating the S3QL package, I somehow get a dependency on both python and python2.7: Depends: python (>= 2.6.6-7~), [...], python2.7 They were both generated by dh_python2. And they are both needed to run the postinst script: 1) "python (>= 2.6.6-7~)" is needed because /usr/bin/pycompile is in the "python" package. 2) s3ql's private modules must be used only with python2.7 (since /usr/lib/s3ql/s3ql/_deltadump.so was built for 2.7). Naturally, you need python2.7 to byte-compile for 2.7. Does it make sense now? No, of course it doesn't. All scripts that would use the _deltadump extension have #!/usr/bin/python shebangs, so there's no guarantee they'll actually be run with python2.7. The dependency should have been "python (>= 2.7), python (<< 2.8)", as per Python Policy 3.1.1. -- Jakub Wilk -- 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/20111230161412.ga9...@jwilk.net
the logo
Hi Everyone, I have lingered long enough and had no excuse to make the logo available properly. So, due to PSF regulation we could not use any logo containing the derivative of the official python logo. So, blue yellow Debian-in-a-Python won by voting, I have moved it the source .svg under accessibly by you GIT repository: ssh://git.debian.org//git/git/python-modules/misc/python-debian-artwork.git and gave a little kick to http://wiki.debian.org/Python I hope noone minds and everyone is welcome to improve (my artistic and wiki skills are not that high ;) ) Happy New Year! Yours, Yarik On Wed, 14 Sep 2011, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote: > Hi Everyone Alike, > Do we have a logo for our Python-In-Debian effort(s) (was needing one > for a recent talk but failed to deliver in time)? What about > having one? I am not a designer and possibly lacking any taste, so > please do not judge wildly. What would be your choice among the > following 6: > http://www.onerussian.com/tmp/pydebian-red_tuned/ > ? choice 0 == do not like any -- =--= Keep in touch www.onerussian.com Yaroslav Halchenko www.ohloh.net/accounts/yarikoptic -- 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/20111230161510.ga3...@onerussian.com
Re: RFS: python-mplayer
Le 18 Dec 2011 23:12, Jakub Wilk a écrit:
> (I don't intend to sponsor this package.)
>
> I'd recommend using the upstream name (mplayer.py) for the source
> package name.
The upstream author seems to change the name of the project nearly at
each release but, ok, I'll try to stick to it.
Actually it seems I can't commit a rename of the project directory in
the repository ? I get "Authorization failed".
> Unless there's a compelling reason not do so, I'd merge both
> changelog entries into one.
Ok.
> What is the "debian/python-module-stampdir" directory for?
It seems to have been auto-generated by some tools and added by mistake
to the repository. Removed.
> Why "Priority: extra"?
Changed to optional.
> It should be "mplayer (>= 1.0~rc3)" rather than "mplayer (>= 1.0rc3)".
Ok.
> Architecture should be "all", not "any".
Ok.
> "${shlibs:Depends}" can be removed from Depends, it's unused.
Removed.
> The module doesn't handle filenames with special characters correctly:
> | >>> mplayer.Player('eggs"ham.avi')
> | Traceback (most recent call last):
> | File "", line 1, in
> | File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/mplayer/core.py", line 102, in
> __init__
> | self.args = args
> | File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/mplayer/core.py", line 142, in args
> | args = shlex.split(args)
> | File "/usr/lib/python2.7/shlex.py", line 279, in split
> | return list(lex)
> | File "/usr/lib/python2.7/shlex.py", line 269, in next
> | token = self.get_token()
> | File "/usr/lib/python2.7/shlex.py", line 96, in get_token
> | raw = self.read_token()
> | File "/usr/lib/python2.7/shlex.py", line 172, in read_token
> | raise ValueError, "No closing quotation"
> | ValueError: No closing quotation
It works well for me. What are your python and mplayer version ?
> It looks like upstream supports also Python 3.X. Please consider
> supporting it in Debian, too (in a separate binary package,
> python3-mplayer).
Ok, I'll have a look to that.
> The comment at the top of debian/rules doesn't make sense.
Ok.
Thank you very much for your comments. I just committed the updates to
the repository.
Best,
Olivier
--
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/20111230162839.ga3...@bugaga.lan
Re: Mysterious double python dependency
Nikolaus Rath writes: > Hello, > > When creating the S3QL package, I somehow get a dependency on both > python and python2.7: > > Depends: python (>= 2.6.6-7~), [...], python2.7 Apparently the culprit is bug #625740. Best, -Nikolaus -- »Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.« PGP fingerprint: 5B93 61F8 4EA2 E279 ABF6 02CF A9AD B7F8 AE4E 425C -- 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/87ipkyqatw@inspiron.ap.columbia.edu
Re: Mysterious double python dependency
* Nikolaus Rath , 2011-12-30, 11:32: When creating the S3QL package, I somehow get a dependency on both python and python2.7: Depends: python (>= 2.6.6-7~), [...], python2.7 Apparently the culprit is bug #625740. No, #625740 is about dependency generated for public Python modules, which s3ql doesn't have. -- Jakub Wilk -- 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/20111230165314.ga3...@jwilk.net
