Le dimanche 04 juin 2006 à 20:56 +0200, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
> Josselin can you provide a dh_python following those rules? Would anyone
> else be ready to write it? (I could do it, I told so to doko but in fact
> my only interest here is to solve the current problems and not to stay
> heavily
Le samedi 03 juin 2006 à 01:21 +0200, Matthias Klose a écrit :
> Steve Langasek writes:
> > Indeed, the intent was that this strict upper bound would apply to
> > extensions, not to modules. Not sure if that intent got lost somewhere
> > along the way.
>
> IIRC We did conclude that we need the Pr
Le vendredi 02 juin 2006 à 16:58 -0500, Joe Wreschnig a écrit :
> What happened to "Python 2.4 first, new infrastructure later"?
Matthias disagreed with that proposal, and it was decided to push the
changes as fast as possible so that he accepts to upload python2.4
after.
--
.''`. Joss
Le vendredi 02 juin 2006 à 12:52 +0200, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
> For applications:
> * if they use /usr/bin/python, they should simply depend on python-foo
> modules that they use.
> * if they use /usr/bin/python2.X, they should depend on python2.X-foo
> modules that they use.
And on python
On Tue, 06 Jun 2006, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > > > What for? Modules are automatically available to all python versions
> > > > (except those which do not support all versions, but then we can't do
> > > > better...).
> > >
> > > please read again. I'm not talking about shared modules.
> >
> > I'
Raphael Hertzog writes:
> On Tue, 06 Jun 2006, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > > > The 'Provides: python2.3-foo, python2.4-foo' is missing for all
> > > > packages with private modules and scripts (without shared modules).
> > > > For that case we do need XB-Python-Version. If we do want to drop the
> >
On Tue, 06 Jun 2006, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > > The 'Provides: python2.3-foo, python2.4-foo' is missing for all
> > > packages with private modules and scripts (without shared modules).
> > > For that case we do need XB-Python-Version. If we do want to drop the
> > > Provides for packages where t
On Tue, 2006-06-06 at 10:31 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > no, not for packages with private extensions.
>
> Does this kind of package exist? (ie do you have an example?)
fonttools does.
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed me
Raphael Hertzog writes:
> On Tue, 06 Jun 2006, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > assume we want to add a python2.5 package. It's nice to have, but
> > extensions will need an update, or they will FTBFS. At this point I
> > would rather not see python2.5 as supported.
>
> Agreed, however it would be nice f
On Tue, 06 Jun 2006, Matthias Klose wrote:
> assume we want to add a python2.5 package. It's nice to have, but
> extensions will need an update, or they will FTBFS. At this point I
> would rather not see python2.5 as supported.
Agreed, however it would be nice for package which do already work wit
10 matches
Mail list logo
