Re: task-python, proper dependencies in other python packages

On Thu, Jan 13, 2000 at 01:55:19PM -0500, Joe Block wrote: > David Coe wrote: > > > > > I do think task-python(*) makes sense. But I think a "python" package > > > would just encourage people to make gratuitous overarching > > > dependencies... > > > > Another good point. > > Part of the proble

task-python, proper dependencies in other python packages

David Coe wrote: > > > I do think task-python(*) makes sense. But I think a "python" package > > would just encourage people to make gratuitous overarching > > dependencies... > > Another good point. Part of the problem is that there doesn't seem to be a tool yet to automatically figure out whi

Re: RFC: New package "python" and task-python* packages: Suggestion

Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Jan 13, Gregor Hoffleit wrote: > > ...I still like the idea of a > > real python package--IMHO it's a little bit more intuitive than task-python, > > ... > > Finally, and perhaps most important, a real "python" package would make > > versioned depen

Re: Do we prefer Tk8.0 or 8.2 ? (for python-tk, that is)

Gregor Hoffleit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Do we prefer our packages to use tk8.2 or on tk8.0 ? I'd like to suggest to keep Tk 8.0. That is what is usually used by Python on most if not all platforms, and it is well-tested.

Re: RFC: New package "python"

On Jan 13, Gregor Hoffleit wrote: > Ok, maybe we better go with task-python, although I still like the idea of a > real python package--IMHO it's a little bit more intuitive than task-python, > and if the name is still free, why shouldn't we use it. I do think task-python(*) makes sense. But I th

Re: RFC: New package "python"

On Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 04:00:01PM -0500, David Coe wrote: > This sounds like a task package to me, too, but maybe I misunderstand > what you said; would it include anything besides the dependencies? > > Also note that we still have (well, recently had, at least) some packages > which depend on