Re: Plan for ipython 5 transition
Hi, ok, but are you ok with us moving ahead? Is ipython generally ready to migrate? What about the other related packages (ipykernel, jupyter_client, jupyter_core, nbconvert, nbformat). Should they all migrate together? Are they ready (up to questions of transition)? I did another attempt to build yade against ipython 5 and it failed. So it needs to be added to the list of reverse depends that need more attention. Best, Tobias On 10/11/2016 06:53 AM, Julien Puydt wrote: > Hi, > > On 11/10/2016 02:18, Tobias Hansen wrote: > >> Snark, do you want to file the bugs? > > I'm in the middle of moving -- and I know when I move out, but still > have no clue where to move in : I'm not as readily available as I would > like. > > I'll give a hand if I can, but I don't think it's a good idea to take > responsibility just now. > > Sorry, > > Snark > > ___ > Debian-science-sagemath mailing list > debian-science-sagem...@lists.alioth.debian.org > https://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-sagemath
Re: python debug packages
Iustin Pop writes: > Reading > https://wiki.debian.org/Python/LibraryStyleGuide#Building_python_-dbg_packages, > there is some hints to this The introduction of ‘foo-dbgsym’ automatic generated packages makes me quite sure those instructions are obsolete. But perhaps they are not? > but it's not clear that only automatic debug packages work for Python > packages. Would it make sense to update the wiki page and say "don't > migrate to dbgsym packages as Python needs debug extensions and not > only debug symbols"? Reading that reference again, I am not much wiser. It does not reference ‘foo-dbgsym’ packages so the reader doesn't know which instructions are to be followed. Could someone who understands *why* ‘foo-dbgsym’ is not sufficient, please update the wiki page to be explicit about what is special to Python and under what specific circumstances we still need ‘foo-dbg’ packages. -- \“With Lisp or Forth, a master programmer has unlimited power | `\ and expressiveness. With Python, even a regular guy can reach | _o__) for the stars.” —Raymond Hettinger | Ben Finney
Re: python debug packages
❦ 11 octobre 2016 10:38 CEST, Ben Finney : >> Reading >> https://wiki.debian.org/Python/LibraryStyleGuide#Building_python_-dbg_packages, >> there is some hints to this > > The introduction of ‘foo-dbgsym’ automatic generated packages makes me > quite sure those instructions are obsolete. But perhaps they are not? > >> but it's not clear that only automatic debug packages work for Python >> packages. Would it make sense to update the wiki page and say "don't >> migrate to dbgsym packages as Python needs debug extensions and not >> only debug symbols"? > > Reading that reference again, I am not much wiser. It does not reference > ‘foo-dbgsym’ packages so the reader doesn't know which instructions are > to be followed. > > Could someone who understands *why* ‘foo-dbgsym’ is not sufficient, > please update the wiki page to be explicit about what is special to > Python and under what specific circumstances we still need ‘foo-dbg’ > packages. The page seems up-to-date and already explains why Python is different (presence of a debug interpreter) and that the -dbg package contains the symbols for the regular extensions as well as the unstripped extensions for the debug interpreter. -- When one burns one's bridges, what a very nice fire it makes. -- Dylan Thomas signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: python debug packages
Vincent Bernat writes: > The page seems up-to-date It makes no reference to why ‘foo-dbgsym’ is not enough, so the reader doesn't have any guidance on which practice overrules the other. > and already explains why Python is different (presence of a debug > interpreter) As I said, that doesn't explain it. Please consider that someone reading those instructions may have no more sophisticated idea of debug symbol packages than “I heard that they are done automatically now, so I'll just rely on that”. So this: > and that the -dbg package contains the symbols for the regular > extensions as well as the unstripped extensions for the debug > interpreter. doesn't address the confusion, I think. -- \“If you go parachuting, and your parachute doesn't open, and | `\you friends are all watching you fall, I think a funny gag | _o__) would be to pretend you were swimming.” —Jack Handey | Ben Finney
Re: Plan for ipython 5 transition
Hi, On 11/10/2016 09:27, Tobias Hansen wrote: ok, but are you ok with us moving ahead? Is ipython generally ready to migrate? What about the other related packages (ipykernel, jupyter_client, jupyter_core, nbconvert, nbformat). Should they all migrate together? Are they ready (up to questions of transition)? Of course I'm ok with moving ahead! And yes, everything jupyter-related needs to come together. Snark
