Gregor Hoffleit writes:
> I have uploaded experimental Python 2.1 packages. Grab them at
>
> http://people.debian.org/~flight/python2/
thanks!
> Now the problems start if neither 2.0.1 nor 2.1.1 would be ready in time. If
> it's obious early that the won't be ready in time, we could sta
I have uploaded experimental Python 2.1 packages. Grab them at
http://people.debian.org/~flight/python2/
The packages are completely untested. I had to re-implement the building of
the shared library (just finished), the remainder of the packages is mostly
unchanged.
In a few hours, I will l
Hi Moshe,
I'm trying to lay out a schedule for the Debian Python packages in woody. My
plan would also depend on the release date of Python 2.0.1. Thomas Wouters
wrote: "Another couple of weeks at least, before a release candidate. It
also depends on Moshe; if he actually releases 2.0.1 anytime so
On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 01:02:29PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Gregor Hoffleit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I talked to RMS, Eben Moglen and GvR. The bad news: According to RMS+Moglen,
> > the license used in Python 2.1 still is not yet compatible with the GPL. The
> > good news: The PSF d
Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Florian Weimer writes:
> > This is probably correct, but it is completely irrelevant in our case.
> > Some parts of Python 2.1 are still covered by the GPL-incompatible
> > CNRI license, so Python 2.1 as a whole is not GPL compatible.
>
> which part
Florian Weimer writes:
> This is probably correct, but it is completely irrelevant in our case.
> Some parts of Python 2.1 are still covered by the GPL-incompatible
> CNRI license, so Python 2.1 as a whole is not GPL compatible.
which parts exactly?
Gregor Hoffleit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I talked to RMS, Eben Moglen and GvR. The bad news: According to RMS+Moglen,
> the license used in Python 2.1 still is not yet compatible with the GPL. The
> good news: The PSF decided to drop the choice of law clause. A modified
> license is in CVS, a
7 matches
Mail list logo