Re: packaging problems with python3.5 and python 3.6
Hi Steve, thanks for your answer, very much appreciated. > Ok, that was the first hit I got but I discounted it because it spoke of > packaging "libraries", not modules or extensions. Indeed, but I was choosing between "applications" and "libraries" and the later one sounded more appropriate. > I added python3-lxml because without it, build-time tests failed for > python3. If I also added python-lxml, that was purely a cut'n'paste error. No, my fault, it is python*3*-lxml. Thanks. > AFAIK you would need to get the ftpmasters to reject the existing -1 first. Ok, thanks a lot. All the best Norbert -- PREINING Norbert http://www.preining.info Accelia Inc. +JAIST +TeX Live +Debian Developer GPG: 0x860CDC13 fp: F7D8 A928 26E3 16A1 9FA0 ACF0 6CAC A448 860C DC13
Re: updating packages
Christopher Hoskin writes: > As sphinx is used for documentation, even if you're building a python2 > package, you can use the python3 sphinx. Build-depends on > python3-sphinx and Build-Conflicts on python-sphinx. Yes, was wondering that. > I was going to look at updating vine, kombu and python-ampq this > weekend, but the upstream tarballs have been signed by a different key > pair than the one advertised at: :-( Please keep me up-to-date on developments. Thanks! -- Brian May
Re: python3 for pysrs
On Monday, July 24, 2017 03:49:39 PM Sandro Knauß wrote: > Hey, > > > I know the upstream developer. I would recommend that you contact him. > > He's been gradually moving from Sourceforge to GitHub and I expect he'd > > move pysrs if you offered to port it. > > Okay done - mail sent, than we see what happens :) I understand it's on github now. Scott K signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
