Le jeudi 18 mai 2006 à 00:11 -0500, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> A package named python-ctypes must support the current python version: it
> must ensure this by having a versioned dependency on the versions of python
> that it is compatible with.
>
> That means that if python-ctypes only supports py
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 10:06:59AM +0530, Ganesan Rajagopal wrote:
> > Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Le jeudi 18 mai 2006 à 08:17 +0530, Ganesan Rajagopal a écrit :
> >> > There's no point in simplifying python packaging if in fact it becomes
> >> > more complicated because
> Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Le jeudi 18 mai 2006 à 08:17 +0530, Ganesan Rajagopal a écrit :
>> > There's no point in simplifying python packaging if in fact it becomes
>> > more complicated because we allow exceptions.
>>
>> Then please suggest how to handle the issues th
Hey!
Em Sáb, 2006-05-13 às 21:42 -0300, Gustavo Noronha Silva escreveu:
> Comments? Bug reports to my email address, please. May I go on and
> upload the packages to unstable? I'll upload TurboGears 0.9 to
> experimental, if it is ok, 'till it is released as stable. The modules
> will go straight
Le jeudi 18 mai 2006 à 08:17 +0530, Ganesan Rajagopal a écrit :
> > There's no point in simplifying python packaging if in fact it becomes
> > more complicated because we allow exceptions.
>
> Then please suggest how to handle the issues that I raised with the new
> policy.
I don't see any issues
> Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Le mercredi 17 mai 2006 à 14:12 +0530, Ganesan Rajagopal a écrit :
>> I understand the upgrade issues that pythonX.Y packages cause with multiple
>> versions of python in Debian. However, for binary modules I don't really see
>> an alternative i
Le mercredi 17 mai 2006 à 14:12 +0530, Ganesan Rajagopal a écrit :
> I understand the upgrade issues that pythonX.Y packages cause with multiple
> versions of python in Debian. However, for binary modules I don't really see
> an alternative in some cases. How about this alternate proposal for binar
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Hmm, seems a bit backward to me. What if I don't have python2.3 installed at
>> all. What's the point in keeping /usr/lib/python2.3/site-packages/foo.so
>> around?
> Nothing in policy will require that you do this. We discussed specifically
>
On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 10:03:15AM +0530, Ganesan Rajagopal wrote:
> > Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > In short, the main decision has been to drop entirely python2.x-foo
> > packages. They will, however, be provided as virtual packages, but only
> > if something actually need
9 matches
Mail list logo
