On Friday 29 December 2006 03:10, Steve Langasek wrote:
> It was? I don't remember this... I certainly wanted to make sure etch
> didn't release with ancient, lingering versions of python like 2.1 and
> 2.2, but from a release POV I never had strong feelings about getting
ase with ancient, lingering versions of python like 2.1 and 2.2,
but from a release POV I never had strong feelings about getting rid of
python 2.3, which was the current version in sarge. Indeed, it would be
nice to have overlap in the supported versions between one release and the
next, tho
On Sun, 2006-12-24 at 02:22 -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Dec 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 00:38 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > > To conclude, the support of multiple python versions is not meant at
> > > all as an excuse for lazy debian main
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 00:38 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > To conclude, the support of multiple python versions is not meant at
> > all as an excuse for lazy debian maintainers depending on python for
> > not following upstream python development.
On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 00:38 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> An explicitely stated goal of the release team was to reduce the
> number of supported python versions for the next stable release. We
> did include three python versions for sarge (2.[123]). To reduce that
> count we do have to drop 2.3 (
On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 00:38 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> To conclude, the support of multiple python versions is not meant at
> all as an excuse for lazy debian maintainers depending on python for
> not following upstream python development.
Are you calling me lazy for not fixing a bug that you
On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 12:38:05AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> An explicitely stated goal of the release team was to reduce the
> number of supported python versions for the next stable release. We
> did include three python versions for sarge (2.[123]).
Actually, four: 2.4 is also in sarge (ma
Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
> On Wed, 2006-12-20 at 19:51 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 11:17:03AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > > The python team has apparently decreed that python 2.3 will not be in
> > > etch. This forces every pac
you can:
> > > $ sudo apt-get install python2.3
> > > The dependency stuff merely notes that upgrading python without also
> > > upgrading wxgtk-python may break stuff.
> > actually, if the dependencies are right, you cannot upgrade to python
> > (2.3) without
pgrading python without also
> > upgrading wxgtk-python may break stuff.
> actually, if the dependencies are right, you cannot upgrade to python
> (2.3) without also upgrading to wxgtk-python (2.3) or de-installing
> wxgtk-python (2.2).
Sure you can. dpkg --force-depends -i
t; > latest-and-greatest python in the meantime. This is the issue at
> > hand.
>
> Sure you can:
>
> $ sudo apt-get install python2.3
>
> The dependency stuff merely notes that upgrading python without also
> upgrading wxgtk-python may break stuff.
actually, if th
On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 11:44:22PM -0400, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
> The negative effect for the users is that you can't upgrade python
> while wxgtk-python is installed so you can't try out the
> latest-and-greatest python in the meantime. This is the issue at
> hand.
Sure you can:
On Sun, Aug 17, 2003 at 11:22:43AM +0200, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
| On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 08:33:26AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
| > Now, I could do the dependency on python (>= 2.2), python (<<2.3) thing.
| > But what would that gain me or users? I see no benefit there, other
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 11:47:48AM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> There is an alternative... only support one version of python... and be
> stuck at python 2.1 until everything uses it, or lose things like zope
> etc.
Alternatively the python developers could try to keep backwards
compatibility :-
On Sat, Aug 09, 2003 at 02:04:52AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Joey Hess writes:
> > Josip Rodin wrote:
> > > Am I the only one who has a disgusting reminiscence of netscape*.*
> > > packages
> > > every time python* is mentioned? :P
> >
> > Actually I'm more reminded of the perl* packages and
Joey Hess writes:
> Josip Rodin wrote:
> > Am I the only one who has a disgusting reminiscence of netscape*.* packages
> > every time python* is mentioned? :P
>
> Actually I'm more reminded of the perl* packages and the complete mess
> that followed. And I keep expecting to see the same set of pro
Josip Rodin wrote:
> Am I the only one who has a disgusting reminiscence of netscape*.* packages
> every time python* is mentioned? :P
Actually I'm more reminded of the perl* packages and the complete mess
that followed. And I keep expecting to see the same set of problems
affect python.
--
see
still a few niggly things, but if
> Debian can go to Python 2.3 within days of it being released without
> breaking anything else, I'd say thats pretty damn impressive.
>
...
-[ Domenico Andreoli, aka cavok
--[ http://filibusta.crema.unimi.it/~cavok/gpgkey.asc
---[ 3A0F 2F80 F7
e... only support one version of python... and be
stuck at python 2.1 until everything uses it, or lose things like zope
etc.
Personally I was going to post "nice job everyone... the Python Policy
looks like it is working". There are still a few niggly things, but if
Debian can go to P
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 09:33:26AM -0500, Chad Walstrom wrote:
> > > Am I the only one who has a disgusting reminiscence of netscape*.*
> > > packages every time python* is mentioned? :P
>
> > hmmm.. just curious... why?
>
> The short of it: he's joking. Note the smiley. Even though package
> n
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 11:18:53AM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> Am I the only one who has a disgusting reminiscence of netscape*.*
> packages every time python* is mentioned? :P
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 02:59:00PM +0200, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
> hmmm.. just curious... why?
The short of it: he's j
hmmm.. just curious... why?
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 11:18:53AM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 10:31:53PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > Last weekend, python 2.3 was released.
> > With the next python2.3 upload, python2.3 becomes the default python
> > v
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 10:31:53PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Last weekend, python 2.3 was released.
> With the next python2.3 upload, python2.3 becomes the default python
> version.
Am I the only one who has a disgusting reminiscence of netscape*.* packages
every time python* is
Last weekend, python 2.3 was released. For an overview see
http://python.org/2.3/highlights.html
With the next python2.3 upload, python2.3 becomes the default python
version. Some packages become uninstallable until they are converted
to the new version. In this time you should not update
24 matches
Mail list logo
