On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 01:42:24PM +0200, Christoph Haas wrote:
> I just wanted to get your .diff.gz file from
> http://kumar.travisbsd.org/debpackages/ and see if I can upload it.
> However there is just your build directory. Where can I find the .dsc
> and .diff.gz files?
>
I guess they are the
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 10:40:38AM -0400, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > > Another detail... you might extend the description (debian/control)
> > > of the python2.(3|4)-goopy binary packages to read something like
> > > "This package provides the modules for Python 2.4".
> >
> > Done that as well.
> Yo
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 06:48:11PM +0530, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 12:40:53PM +0200, Christoph Haas wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 04:51:51PM +0530, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
> It's gone now. However, I haven't included any README.Debian, since
> the documentation shown by apt
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 12:40:53PM +0200, Christoph Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 04:51:51PM +0530, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
> > Sorry for going on and on!
>
> Don't worry. We'll be done complaining about the package soon. ;)
I am sure about that! :-)
> > What I have done is, I have prepende
Hi, Kumar...
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 04:51:51PM +0530, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
> Sorry for going on and on!
Don't worry. We'll be done complaining about the package soon. ;)
> But I just wanted to inform you that I have found a way to make up for
> the docs, and want to know whether it is all right
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 07:41:45PM +0530, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
> However, I have NOT done anything to the docs, and feel that the docs
> aren't neccesary; users are expected to look at the source for
> docs. Moreover, the docs in the package are misleading, as has been
> pointed out. So, this is pr
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 08:45:19AM +0530, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 10:29:37PM -0400, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 07:40:35AM +0530, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
> > > 2.There is one file, functional_unittest.py which is executable. Now,
> > > its permissions get
On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 08:51:43PM +0200, Christoph Haas wrote:
> Thomas is right that it's not trivial to create multi-binary packages.
> I'd upload your package if you just want to do a package for Python 2.3.
> Perhaps you want to look at another Python package though. I believe
> that http://pa
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 08:45:19AM +0530, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
> Is it all right to use sed -i? sed -i is supported only in sed 4+. I
> guess it is..., then does my build need to depend on sed?
I don't think so because sed is a build-essential packages:
cf. /usr/share/build-essential/essential-pa
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 07:40:35AM +0530, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 08:51:43PM +0200, Christoph Haas wrote:
> > Thomas is right that it's not trivial to create multi-binary packages.
> > I'd upload your package if you just want to do a package for Python 2.3.
> > Perhaps you w
On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 10:29:37PM -0400, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 07:40:35AM +0530, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
> > 1.docs: Upstream claims that they have docs, but there aren't
> > any. Anyway, the source is well commented. What should I do with the
> > README and PKG-INFO?
> D
On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 08:51:43PM +0200, Christoph Haas wrote:
> > I have edited it, and added a message saying Debian users have it
> > installed already.
>
> That's self-explaining in my opinion. After all that's why a user will
> have installed your package. :)
>
> Thomas is right that it's n
On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 05:22:15PM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> Kumar Appaiah wrote:
> You're not using a *single* source *package* to generate the binary
> packages, though.
> Note that "multiple binary packages" is territory difficult enough for
> the NM guide to discourage for beginners. If y
On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 08:01:54PM +0530, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 02:16:27PM +0200, Christoph Haas wrote:
> > - the debian/docs contains two files that are not very helpful for the
> > user. The instructions on installing the package are in fact
> > misleading.
>
> I hav
Kumar Appaiah wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 04:44:24PM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
>
>>You're only supposed to have a single source package generating the
>>appropriate binary packages.
> Then I have done the right thing; I used the same sources to compile
> modules for python2.3 as well as p
On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 04:44:24PM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> You're only supposed to have a single source package generating the
> appropriate binary packages.
Then I have done the right thing; I used the same sources to compile
modules for python2.3 as well as python2.4.
Kumae
--
Kumar A
Kumar Appaiah wrote:
>>- since python2.4 is out you may consider creating a second binary
>> package (hint: debian/control) python2.4-goopy
> Done, though I didn't actually get your hint.
You're only supposed to have a single source package generating the
appropriate binary packages.
Kind regards
On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 02:16:27PM +0200, Christoph Haas wrote:
> Hi, Kumar...
>
> Thanks for your contribution. Please allow me to comment on your
> package:
First, many thanks for the patient review.
> - the upstream tarball (orig.tar.gz) on your web server seems
> to be incomplete (just con
Hi, Kumar...
On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 08:54:06AM +0530, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
> Goopy (http://goog-goopy.sf.net) is a Python module for functional
> programming released by Google. It has a few pure Python functions,
> and is quite small. It is released under the BSD License.
>
> I have carefully r
(I had already sent a mail in this regard, but I hadn't put RFS:. So,
I am sending one again. Please excuse me).
Goopy (http://goog-goopy.sf.net) is a Python module for functional
programming released by Google. It has a few pure Python functions,
and is quite small. It is released under the BSD L
20 matches
Mail list logo
