Re: Question for the transition

2001-09-04 Thread John Goerzen
Jim Penny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This is not all that simple. python2.1 conflicts with zope2.3.x > and python1.5 conflicts with zope2.4.x. Further, it is often > the case that there is a fair amount of internal breakage when > upgrading from one release of zope to another. It is not unus

Re: Question for the transition

2001-09-04 Thread Neil Schemenauer
Jim Penny wrote: > This is not all that simple. python2.1 conflicts with zope2.3.x > and python1.5 conflicts with zope2.4.x. In that case I think it's better to create python1.5 and zope2.3 legacy packages for people who can't upgrade. Neil

Re: Question for the transition

2001-09-04 Thread Jim Penny
On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 06:43:37PM -0400, Scott Moynes wrote: > * Robert Kern ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > However, Zope 2.4.0 and up require Python 2.1. > > However, Debian only has Zope 2.3.3, although this may soon be > remedied as a new stable version, 2.4.1, was released recently. This is

Re: Question for the transition

2001-09-04 Thread Scott Moynes
* Robert Kern ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > However, Zope 2.4.0 and up require Python 2.1. However, Debian only has Zope 2.3.3, although this may soon be remedied as a new stable version, 2.4.1, was released recently. -- Copyleft (c) 2001, Scott Moynes pgpJeORv9sXhA.pgp Description: PGP signatu

Re: Question for the transition

2001-09-04 Thread Robert Kern
On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 05:51:12PM -0400, Scott Moynes wrote: [snip] > For what it's worth, Zope is not compatible with python 2.x, and being > a high profile Free software project, I think retaining python 1.5 > simply for Zope may be enough to justify a little bit of hassle. However, Zope 2.4.

Re: Question for the transition

2001-09-04 Thread Neil Schemenauer
Jérôme Marant: > The major question is: do we still need to ship 1.5.2? Unfortunately, > the old python seems to be necessary since some old packages are not > compatible with 2.x versions. Do you know of any? If you can point them out I may be able to help fix them. Scott Moynes wrote: >

Re: Question for the transition

2001-09-04 Thread Scott Moynes
> The major question is: do we still need to ship 1.5.2? Unfortunately, > the old python seems to be necessary since some old packages are not > compatible with 2.x versions. > > I would advice to audit every package in order to see if it can run > with newer pythons and we may come up w

Re: Question for the transition

2001-09-04 Thread Jérôme Marant
Neil Schemenauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Mikael Hedin wrote: > > I think the proposed scheme with python2.1 and module2.0 et.al. is > > really ugly and messy. > > I agree. Didn't the Perl packagers advise us not to go down this > path? There is only one Perl in Debian now , which is 5.6

Re: Question for the transition

2001-09-04 Thread Neil Schemenauer
Mikael Hedin wrote: > I think the proposed scheme with python2.1 and module2.0 et.al. is > really ugly and messy. I agree. Didn't the Perl packagers advise us not to go down this path? Neil

Question for the transition

2001-09-04 Thread Mikael Hedin
Hi, I'm probably missing something big, but here are my thoughts: Why mess with all these versioned python? Could we not have python-base (that will be version 2.1 soon), and for the ones who need, python-base-x.y? And the python-base will be the default/newest available? If packages install

Re: Intent for NMU of python-2.1 packages

2001-09-04 Thread Jérôme Marant
Gregor Hoffleit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm still alive, I'm not lost ;-) You're not dead, which is the most important ;-) > And that's the problem where I was stuck. > > The dependencies of the current experimental python1.5 packages aren't > good enough to allow an easy upgrade from

Re: Intent for NMU of python-2.1 packages

2001-09-04 Thread Carey Evans
Gregor Hoffleit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...] > Please provide me with feedback if I should make this radical > transition. I would then go on and upload python1.5 and python2.1 > (perhaps even a python2.0 source package to ease the migration). The > existing python (and python2) packages wou

Re: Intent for NMU of python-2.1 packages

2001-09-04 Thread David Maslen
Gregor Hoffleit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > How does that sound ? I think it sounds like an awful lot of work. I still don't really understand why we keep python1.5, but presumably there are some good reasons, and I trust the debian team to have thrashed that out by now. You mentioned emacs, w

Re: Intent for NMU of python-2.1 packages

2001-09-04 Thread Gregor Hoffleit
* Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010904 11:18]: > Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > ... > > in June (2.1) and July (2.1.1). Gregor (the python-1.5 and python-2.0 > > maintainer) has put experimental packages at > > http://people.debian.org/~flight/python and was asking for help >

Re: Intent for NMU of python-2.1 packages

2001-09-04 Thread Jérôme Marant
Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ... > in June (2.1) and July (2.1.1). Gregor (the python-1.5 and python-2.0 > maintainer) has put experimental packages at > http://people.debian.org/~flight/python and was asking for help > regarding the packaging (20010801). Jérôme Marant answered (2001