Re: RFS: pyexcelerator - module to create spreadsheets
Kevin Coyner wrote: > The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: > - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/pyexcelerator > - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main > contrib non-free > - dget > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/pyexcelerator/pyexcelerator_0.6.3a-1.dsc > > I would appreciate it if someone uploaded this package for me. I'll look into this. Frederic -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: removing python2.3
Matthias Klose wrote: > python2.3-lasso (not yet converted?) In NEW queue. Frederic -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
lasso_0.6.5-2.1_i386.changes is NEW [was: Re: removing python2.3]
I announced : > > python2.3-lasso (not yet converted?) > > In NEW queue. Matthias, why did you just upload a new version totally removing Python support ? I confess I missed 377800 and 380851 but this was *days* ago. I had been responsive on your previous email, why didn't you ask me ? Also, your upload also got in the NEW queue and that I don't understand. Frederic -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Python in package development?
> As you may noticed ;), most of the Debian packages now use Perl in their > build-time and install-time scripts. I don't care about build-time but care about install-time. > Why is this? Perhaps, we can make some version of python to be > "default" (Just like we do now with 2.1), and make it a build-essential, > and base? Then, we could write a python-debconf, etc., and use > Our Favourite Language to develop packages for Our Favourite Distro? No. I would prefer to drop Perl from base than adding Python to it. And if that means rewriting postinst scripts in shell and not in Python... Regards, Frederic -- Frédéric Péters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Théridion, spécialistes GNU/Linux, rue de l'Aqueduc 83 - 1050 Bruxelles GPG: 1024D/6783ED5E: 62BF 2EDA 404A 6EB4 F5BE A1E2 A11D CBB1 6783 ED5E -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: filing bug reports on 2002-10-14 to remove above packages from unstable
Matthias Klose wrote : > Next Monday, I will file reports for `ftp.debian.org' to remove above > mentioned packages from Debian unstable. They all have filed at least > one serious bug report, that they are not installable in the current > unstable distribution. I just NMU'ed python-tal to DELAYED/3-days Regards, Frederic -- Frédéric Péters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Théridion, spécialistes GNU/Linux, rue de l'Aqueduc 83 - 1050 Bruxelles GPG: 1024D/6783ED5E: 62BF 2EDA 404A 6EB4 F5BE A1E2 A11D CBB1 6783 ED5E
Re: filing bug reports on 2002-10-14 to remove above packages from unstable
Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote : > On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 11:22:22AM +0200, Frederic Peters wrote: > > I just NMU'ed python-tal to DELAYED/3-days > > Who told you? > Who asked you? Matthias Klose asked. Several times. Last call is: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2002/debian-devel-200210/msg00609.html I need python-tal to work and couldn't suffer seeing it gone. Regards, Frederic -- Frédéric Péters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Théridion, spécialistes GNU/Linux, rue de l'Aqueduc 83 - 1050 Bruxelles GPG: 1024D/6783ED5E: 62BF 2EDA 404A 6EB4 F5BE A1E2 A11D CBB1 6783 ED5E
Re: O: python-tal
Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote : > Package: wnpp > Version: unavailable; reported 2002-10-12 > Severity: normal > > Lack of good manners is something that i cannot stand, but i've to see when > i'm not helping any more. I don't agree with your judgement but if you've been working on python-tal recently I'd like you to reconsider your orphaning of Python TAL. I only uploaded (to DELAYED/) since I didn't want python-tal be removed from Debian. But I don't have the time to properly maintain this package. Regards, Frederic -- Frédéric Péters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Théridion, spécialistes GNU/Linux, rue de l'Aqueduc 83 - 1050 Bruxelles GPG: 1024D/6783ED5E: 62BF 2EDA 404A 6EB4 F5BE A1E2 A11D CBB1 6783 ED5E
python transition and python-tal
Hi, python-tal is maintained by the QA team so I thought I'd help and NMU it. I added a python2.3-tal package and it built correctly but the no-version package (python-tal) still depends upon python2.2-tal (I changed Build-depends-indep to python (>= 2.3), python (<< 2.4) ). Where did I miss the obvious ? Packages available on http://people.debian.org/~fpeters/python-tal/ Regards, Frederic pgpchdlApV6Ab.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: python transition and python-tal
Josselin Mouette wrote : > What version of python is installed on your system ? Your packages built > fine on my system and made python-tal depend on python2.3-tal as > expected. Great. I had python 2.3 installed but not yet as default python version (waiting for python-bsddb3). I don't have access to a chrooted environment for now to build the package; could you (or anybody else) upload the package ? Regards, Frederic
Re: Bug#357620: gnome-blog-poster crashes when run - again/new
severity 357620 normal
tag 357620 unreproducible
thanks
Ian MacDonald wrote:
> Package: gnome-blog
> Version: 0.9-3
> Severity: grave
>
> Something changed. I miss gnome-blog, its just so convienent.
>
>
> ~$ gnome-blog-poster
> Traceback (most recent call last):
> File "/usr/bin/gnome-blog-poster", line 3, in ?
> pygtk.require('2.0')
> File "/usr/lib/python2.3/site-packages/pygtk.py", line 47, in
> require
> File "/usr/lib/python2.3/site-packages/pygtk.py", line 34, in
> _get_available_versions
> OSError: [Errno 2] No such file or directory:
> '/usr/lib/python23.zip'
This can't be caused by gnome-blog; looks similar to
http://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2003/09/msg00022.html
No definitive answer in that thread, ccing debian-python and
debian-gtk-gnome for input.
Regards,
Frederic
> -- System Information:
> Debian Release: testing/unstable
> APT prefers unstable
> APT policy: (990, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (500, 'stable'), (1,
> 'experimental')
> Architecture: i386 (i686)
> Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
> Kernel: Linux 2.6.14-imac
> Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968)
>
> Versions of packages gnome-blog depends on:
> ii gconf22.12.1-12 GNOME configuration database
> syste
> ii python2.3.5-5An interactive high-level
> object-o
> ii python-gnome2 2.12.3-2 Python bindings for the GNOME
> desk
> ii python-gnome2-extras 2.12.1-2.1 Python bindings for the GNOME
> desk
>
> gnome-blog recommends no packages.
>
> -- no debconf information
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Coordinated effort to update python packages
Frank Lichtenheld wrote: > My libgpod package didn't appear in the list because it currently only > builds an python2.3-gpod and no python-gpod at all. Feel free to NMU > this package as I really have no idea about that whole python modules My python2.3-lasso package didn't appear either; I should be there to upload but feel free to send a patch to the BTS. Note it uses autotools, it will be more complicated than setup.py to get more than one python version supported (and it may not be necessary). Frederic -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
