On Thu, 2006-02-02 at 21:09 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > that is, packages with private modules but without extension modules
> > and no modules in /usr/lib/python2.x. how many packages are this?
2006/2/3, Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Off the top of my head and in no particular order:
On Thu, 2006-02-02 at 23:02 +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 02 février 2006 à 21:09 +0100, Matthias Klose a écrit :
> > Josselin Mouette writes:
> > > There is still a situation we can improve easily, though: private
> > > modules. Currently, they have to migrate with python transitions,
Le jeudi 02 février 2006 à 21:09 +0100, Matthias Klose a écrit :
> Josselin Mouette writes:
> > There is still a situation we can improve easily, though: private
> > modules. Currently, they have to migrate with python transitions, and
> > this is only because of byte-compilation. The python-suppor
On Thu, 2006-02-02 at 21:09 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Josselin Mouette writes:
> > There is still a situation we can improve easily, though: private
> > modules. Currently, they have to migrate with python transitions, and
> > this is only because of byte-compilation. The python-support way of
Josselin Mouette writes:
> There is still a situation we can improve easily, though: private
> modules. Currently, they have to migrate with python transitions, and
> this is only because of byte-compilation. The python-support way of
> doing things should still be fine for them, and it can reduce
Le jeudi 26 janvier 2006 à 15:26 +0100, Matthias Klose a écrit :
> While preparing some example packages to experiment with
> python-central and python-support, I did see some issues with both
> proposals, in that the dependencies are not fulfilled for every python
> version that both packaging sys
6 matches
Mail list logo
