On Wed, 7 Feb 2001, Moshe Zadka wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Feb 2001 02:39:11 -0500, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > The binaries should be called python1.5 and python2.0, and python
> > should be a symlink to whatever is the default one.
>
> No they shouldn't. Joey Hess wrote to debian-
On 07-Feb-2001 Moshe Zadka wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Feb 2001 02:39:11 -0500, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> The binaries should be called python1.5 and python2.0, and python
>> should be a symlink to whatever is the default one.
>
> No they shouldn't. Joey Hess wrote to debian-python
On Wed, 07 Feb 2001 02:39:11 -0500, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The binaries should be called python1.5 and python2.0, and python
> should be a symlink to whatever is the default one.
No they shouldn't. Joey Hess wrote to debian-python about the problems
such a scheme caused when
> That's how woody works now, and the binaries are called python and python2.
The binaries should be called python1.5 and python2.0, and python
should be a symlink to whatever is the default one. This is how the
standard "make install" works, and it makes it possible for scripts to
require a spec
rafal polonski wrote:
> Is there a sense packaging Medusa:
> Medusa is a 'server platform' - it provides a framework for
> implementing asynchronous socket-based servers (tcp/ip and on unix,
> unix domain sockets).
> http://www.nightmare.com/medusa/
>
> It's licence is the same as Python.
> The fa
Roland Mas (2001-01-28 16:25:48 +0100) :
> If noone raises their hand, I'll probably upload a new
> python-orbit package in a few days.
Well, it's been ten days, and no strong opposition was expressed. I'm
uploading the package right now. Should be in Incoming in a matter of
minutes, and in s
6 matches
Mail list logo
