Mike Hommey writes:
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 10:09:15AM +0200, Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Mike Hommey writes:
> > > Anyways, there would be a problem with python native extensions linked
> > > against libpython. They would get the shlib dependencies on python2.x
> > > package
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> Le Mar 13 Juin 2006 07:12, Anthony Towns a écrit :
> > Apps can do either:
> >
> > Package: foo
> > Depends: python (>= 2.4), python-bar
> >
> > /usr/bin/foo: #!/usr/bin/env python
>
> doesn't it breaks if python-bar only provides 2.3 modul
Le Mer 14 Juin 2006 15:23, Pierre Habouzit a écrit :
> Le Mar 13 Juin 2006 07:12, Anthony Towns a écrit :
> > Apps can do either:
> >
> > Package: foo
> > Depends: python (>= 2.4), python-bar
> >
> > /usr/bin/foo: #!/usr/bin/env python
>
> doesn't it breaks if python-bar only provides 2
Le Mar 13 Juin 2006 07:12, Anthony Towns a écrit :
> Apps can do either:
>
> Package: foo
> Depends: python (>= 2.4), python-bar
>
> /usr/bin/foo: #!/usr/bin/env python
doesn't it breaks if python-bar only provides 2.3 modules ? because in
an apt PoV the dependencies will be fullfiled
Mike Hommey writes:
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 10:09:15AM +0200, Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Mike Hommey writes:
> > > Anyways, there would be a problem with python native extensions linked
> > > against libpython. They would get the shlib dependencies on python2.x
> > > package
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 10:09:15AM +0200, Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Mike Hommey writes:
> > Anyways, there would be a problem with python native extensions linked
> > against libpython. They would get the shlib dependencies on python2.x
> > packages.
>
> So at least we can find
Mike Hommey writes:
> Anyways, there would be a problem with python native extensions linked
> against libpython. They would get the shlib dependencies on python2.x
> packages.
So at least we can find these and fix them.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscri
martin f krafft writes:
> also sprach Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.06.13.0149 +0200]:
> > - The current pythonX.Y-foo packages having modules in the python
> >library path are collapsed into one package python-foo. Binary
> >independent modules are made available for the python
also sprach martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.06.13.0945 +0200]:
> So wouldn't this be a way to get rid of the problem? Why bother
> pre-compiling them?
... doh! because the first is hopefully not by root, and a /var
cache would be subject to cache poisoning if writeable by other
users.
m
also sprach Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.06.13.0932 +0200]:
> > Couldn't Python be extended to store .pyc files in /var?
>
> Python doesn't need to be changed. If you use python-support that's
> precisely what will happen for public modules (but they are still created
> in the postint
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.06.13.0149 +0200]:
> > - The current pythonX.Y-foo packages having modules in the python
> >library path are collapsed into one package python-foo. Binary
> >independent modules are made avai
also sprach Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.06.13.0149 +0200]:
> - The current pythonX.Y-foo packages having modules in the python
>library path are collapsed into one package python-foo. Binary
>independent modules are made available for the python versions
>currently support
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 08:17:17AM +0200, Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 01:49:26AM +0200, Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > - The current pythonX.Y-foo packages having modules in the python
> >library path are collapsed into one package python-
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 01:49:26AM +0200, Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> - The current pythonX.Y-foo packages having modules in the python
>library path are collapsed into one package python-foo. Binary
>independent modules are made available for the python versions
>curr
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 09:59:58PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > AFAIR, a package
> > should not have to depend on python2.3 and python2.4; instead, applications
> > that need a specific version of the interpreter should depend on it
> > themselv
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 09:59:58PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > AFAIR, a package
> > should not have to depend on python2.3 and python2.4; instead, applications
> > that need a specific version of the interpreter should depend on it
> > themsel
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> AFAIR, a package
> should not have to depend on python2.3 and python2.4; instead, applications
> that need a specific version of the interpreter should depend on it
> themselves.
I hope that it will be possible for such apps to do it without
specifying
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 07:39:29AM +0400, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
> >Binary dependent
> >extensions are put for all supported python versions into the
> >same python-foo package.
> So these packages are going to depend on all supported python versions,
> making impossible to remo
Hi,
> > 1. It won't build under python2.4. I have fixes for this that I haven't
> >uploaded (and that need some more testing and tidying up).
>
> You may still ask for help.
This will be easy enough to have ready by the time 2.3 is removed, which
I'm assuming is not happening tomorrow. Wh
>Binary dependent
>extensions are put for all supported python versions into the
>same python-foo package.
So these packages are going to depend on all supported python versions,
making impossible to remove old python versions from user's systems?
pgp8TX0wkQDNo.pgp
Description: PGP
Coin,
Ben Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For reference, decompyle still needs python2.3. There are two issues:
>
> 1. It won't build under python2.4. I have fixes for this that I haven't
>uploaded (and that need some more testing and tidying up).
You may still ask for help.
> 2. It
Hi,
> With the upcoming releases of the last packages which
> didn't support 2.4 yet (Plone on the Zope application server) we may
> be able to drop support for 2.3 in sid and etch as well.
For reference, decompyle still needs python2.3. There are two issues:
1. It won't build under python2.4.
22 matches
Mail list logo
