Re: Help needed to test packages with Django 1.7
On 23 Jul 2014 16:46, "Raphael Hertzog" wrote: > - we should package South 1.0, it uses "south_migrations" instead of > "migrations" if it exists, that way applications can provide migrations > for South and for Django 1.7 Already done. Uploaded and installed in Debian unstable today. Was straight forward.
Re: Bug#755757: transition: wxpython3.0
Am 23.07.2014 03:38, schrieb Olly Betts: > Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: > release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: transition Control: block > -1 by 734799 > > This is a follow-on from the wxwidgets3.0 transition. The wxwidgets2.8 > source package actually contains the wxpython source, which has an embedded > copy of wxwidgets. This has become unworkable as the wxpython releases now > lag the corresponding wxwidgets releases by many months, so for 3.0 we're > splitting the source packages. > > The intention is to eliminate wxwidgets2.8 (and hence wxpython 2.8) before > releasing jessie - the last upstream release (2.8.12) was over 3 years ago, > and there's very little upstream interest in bugs in it now. are you saying that around 80 packages will be removed for jessie just because wxpython isn't yet ported to 3.0? > This should be a "smooth transition", as the packages for wxpython 2.8 and > 3.0 are co-installable. Maybe I misunderstand something but I wouldn't call this "smooth". Matthias -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53cfa62b.5030...@debian.org
Re: Bug#755757: transition: wxpython3.0
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 02:10:19PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > Am 23.07.2014 03:38, schrieb Olly Betts: > > The intention is to eliminate wxwidgets2.8 (and hence wxpython 2.8) before > > releasing jessie - the last upstream release (2.8.12) was over 3 years ago, > > and there's very little upstream interest in bugs in it now. > > are you saying that around 80 packages will be removed for jessie just > because wxpython isn't yet ported to 3.0? I don't really understand the question - wxPython 3.0.0.0 was released in late 2013, and packages for it are in the NEW queue. I'm not suggesting we remove around 80 packages, but that we move them from using wxPython 2.8 to wxPython 3.0. As with any large transition, it's possible that we'll find a few candidates for removal in the process, but that's not the aim of the transition. > > This should be a "smooth transition", as the packages for wxpython 2.8 and > > 3.0 are co-installable. > > Maybe I misunderstand something but I wouldn't call this "smooth". Are you perhaps mixing up wxPython 3.0 and Python 3.x? It is the case that neither wxPython 2.8 nor wxPython 3.0 support Python 3.x, but that's irrelevant to this transition. In this context, "smooth transition" just means that packages can be switched one by one, rather than having to try to coordinate uploads of ~80 different packages. Cheers, Olly -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140723130745.gm8...@survex.com
Re: Bug#755757: transition: wxpython3.0
Am 23.07.2014 15:07, schrieb Olly Betts: > On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 02:10:19PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: >> Am 23.07.2014 03:38, schrieb Olly Betts: >>> The intention is to eliminate wxwidgets2.8 (and hence wxpython 2.8) before >>> releasing jessie - the last upstream release (2.8.12) was over 3 years ago, >>> and there's very little upstream interest in bugs in it now. >> >> are you saying that around 80 packages will be removed for jessie just >> because wxpython isn't yet ported to 3.0? > > I don't really understand the question - wxPython 3.0.0.0 was released > in late 2013, and packages for it are in the NEW queue. > > I'm not suggesting we remove around 80 packages, but that we move them > from using wxPython 2.8 to wxPython 3.0. As with any large transition, > it's possible that we'll find a few candidates for removal in the > process, but that's not the aim of the transition. > >>> This should be a "smooth transition", as the packages for wxpython 2.8 and >>> 3.0 are co-installable. >> >> Maybe I misunderstand something but I wouldn't call this "smooth". > > Are you perhaps mixing up wxPython 3.0 and Python 3.x? It is the case > that neither wxPython 2.8 nor wxPython 3.0 support Python 3.x, but > that's irrelevant to this transition. > > In this context, "smooth transition" just means that packages can be > switched one by one, rather than having to try to coordinate uploads > of ~80 different packages. no, I'm not mixing wxPython 3.0 and Python 3.x. Asking what will happen with packages depending on wxPython 2.8 and which cannot be converted to 3.0. the lack of Python3 support in wxpython 3.0 is disappointing, but such is life. Matthias -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53cfb98f.60...@debian.org
Processing of python-pandocfilters_1.2.1-1_amd64.changes
python-pandocfilters_1.2.1-1_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: python-pandocfilters_1.2.1-1_all.deb python3-pandocfilters_1.2.1-1_all.deb python-pandocfilters_1.2.1-1.dsc python-pandocfilters_1.2.1.orig.tar.gz python-pandocfilters_1.2.1-1.debian.tar.xz Greetings, Your Debian queue daemon (running on host franck.debian.org) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/e1xa1dd-0001px...@franck.debian.org
python-pandocfilters_1.2.1-1_amd64.changes is NEW
binary:python-pandocfilters is NEW. binary:python3-pandocfilters is NEW. source:python-pandocfilters is NEW. Your package has been put into the NEW queue, which requires manual action from the ftpteam to process. The upload was otherwise valid (it had a good OpenPGP signature and file hashes are valid), so please be patient. Packages are routinely processed through to the archive, and do feel free to browse the NEW queue[1]. If there is an issue with the upload, you will recieve an email from a member of the ftpteam. If you have any questions, you may reply to this email. [1]: https://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/e1xa1pb-0003c1...@franck.debian.org
Re: python-pandocfilters_1.2.1-1_amd64.changes is NEW
Hi Sebastian, debian-python@l.d.o, is a discussion list. We don't want all the bug traffic or messages from dak here. Please set your Maintainer field to: Debian Python Modules Team -- Jakub Wilk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140723225612.gb1...@jwilk.net
