On Oct 18, Matthias Klose wrote:
>
> > May I suggest a simpler alternative for (b) (or maybe an alternative "c"):
> >
> > Make package python-XXX containing support for both python 1.5 and
> > python 2.1. For each python {1.5,2.1} that is installed, bytecompile
> > the package's .py files on ins
Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> exactly. But you see that these packages will break when you try to
> upgrade. We can't make 2.1 the default right now, because we will
> _silently_ break packages. Before python can point to python2.1, we
> will have to fix all packages which de
Jérôme Marant writes:
> Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have some questions about the upgrade procedure:
>
>
> >A. Upgrade Procedure
> >
> >
> > This section describe the procedure for the upgrade from the current
> > `python- (1.5)' packag
On Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 03:53:19PM +1300, Carey Evans wrote:
> I notice that python2.1-base depends on libssl0.9.6. I haven't been
> following the developments in Debian's crypto policy, but doesn't this
> mean that python2.1-base should have been uploaded to non-US?
>
> --
>Carey Evans
Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi,
I have some questions about the upgrade procedure:
>A. Upgrade Procedure
>
>
> This section describe the procedure for the upgrade from the current
> `python- (1.5)' packages to the `python1.5-' packages, the
> rem
5 matches
Mail list logo