On Fri, Sep 07, 2001 at 10:00:26AM -0500, Ben Burton wrote:
|
| > The real problem is making assumptions about what /usr/bin/python is
| > beyond what the RefMan says. The same sort of problem occurs if a
| > script writer assumes /bin/sh is bash and uses bash-isms rather than
| > sticking to the
> The real problem is making assumptions about what /usr/bin/python is
> beyond what the RefMan says. The same sort of problem occurs if a
> script writer assumes /bin/sh is bash and uses bash-isms rather than
> sticking to the POSIX specification because /bin/sh could be any POSIX
> compliant sh
On Fri, Sep 07, 2001 at 08:33:28AM -0500, Ben Burton wrote:
|
| > In any case, Jython and CPython really do need to be able to co-exist
| > peacfully.
|
| They certainly coexist peacefully. No problem there. All I'm saying is that
| it doesn't support *.so CPython modules. And this is somehow
Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> Note that the python2 packages are, at this time, legacy.
Okay. What do you think about my plan to have "python" be the latest
version of Python and then have "python-x.y" packages for those people
who need to have older versions?
Neil
> In any case, Jython and CPython really do need to be able to co-exist
> peacfully.
They certainly coexist peacefully. No problem there. All I'm saying is that
it doesn't support *.so CPython modules. And this is somehow unavoidable
since jython is pure java.
So my concern is that if an ad
On Thu, Sep 06, 2001 at 05:32:12PM -0500, Ben Burton wrote:
|
| > I think the admin should be able to choose which python implementation
| > is referred to by /usr/bin/python independent of which python (or
| > python-base if you prefer) packages are installed (the alternatives
| > mechanism may b
On Thu, Sep 06, 2001 at 05:27:18PM -0600, Bruce Sass wrote:
| On Thu, 6 Sep 2001, Neil Schemenauer wrote:
| > dman wrote:
| > > I think the admin should be able to choose which python implementation
| > > is referred to by /usr/bin/python independent of which python (or
| > > python-base if you pre
* Neil Schemenauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010907 00:33]:
> I see now that the python2 packages made it into unstable. This is a
> mistake IMHO. The Perl guys tryed this and it didn't work. Also, the
> name should have been python2.1 not python2. What problem does naming
> the packages "python2" s
El Fri, Sep 07, 2001 at 12:08:20PM +0200, Mikael Hedin escribió:
> Neil Schemenauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> Looks fint to me!
>
> > I'm willing to build new version of packages with broken dependencies.
> > Can we handle the upgrade from Python by having a long list of conflict
Carey Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My preference would be for virtual packages named "python-x.y" to be
> the target of the dependency. This seems to me to allow _more_
> flexibility, since _any_ package can then provide the dependency, even
> if it can't be named "python" for whatever rea
Neil Schemenauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
Looks fint to me!
> I'm willing to build new version of packages with broken dependencies.
> Can we handle the upgrade from Python by having a long list of conflicts
> in the "python" package? Something like:
>
> Conflicts: python-some-ext
11 matches
Mail list logo
