On May 06, 2010, at 04:47 PM, Lino Mastrodomenico wrote:
>2010/5/5 Barry Warsaw :
>> users of Python 3.1 might be surprised by the difference from upstream
>
>It might be useful mentioning somewhere that the best way to detect if
>the Python implementation used supports PEP 3147 is:
>
>import imp
I know I'm a broken record on this, and I (currently ;) have very little power
to do much about it other than *talk*, but...
On May 11, 2010, at 10:18 PM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
>Why am I mentioning Ubuntu at all? Because all decisions about Python in
>Debian are made there.
My own personal hope
On May 18, 2010, at 11:42 PM, anatoly techtonik wrote:
>On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
>>
>> Why I think derivatives should not add new versions?
>> * because it's mostly chasing numbers - I'm pretty sure there are not
>> more than 10 packages that require Python >= 2.6
On May 10, 2010, at 01:23 PM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
>Why I think derivatives should not add new versions?
>* because it's mostly chasing numbers - I'm pretty sure there are not
> more than 10 packages that require Python >= 2.6 and are not easy to
> port to 2.5 in Ubuntu 10.04,
>* because when
On May 16, 2010, at 02:21 PM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
>What's missing to have full PEP3147 support?
>* PEP 384 implementation (will allow us to share (most?) .so files)
I have a concern about this.
While I understand the motivation, I'm not sure implementing PEP 384 will have
any practical help i
On May 23, 2010, at 03:58 PM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
>[Barry Warsaw, 2010-05-22]
>> So, how can we make sure that doesn't happen? IOW, how can I begin to
>> experiment with a Python 2.7 transition in a way that will benefit Debian as
>> well?'
>
>Simply avoid doing transitions with significant ch
With the permission of Rocky, I am forwarding his reply here verbatim:
I am in Crackow right now and my Internet setup is not quite ideal.
Below is why pyimport relative is used. I will reply in full when I get
back in about a week. But here are the salient points
Python's import re
* Rogério Brito , 2010-05-27, 06:11:
With that said, what is the recommended course of action? Should I
manually build the package twice in a row in debian/rules telling it
first to configure with python 2.5 and then 2.6
Yes. Please don't hardcorde version numbers in debian/rules, however;
use
"Jakub Wilk" wrote:
>* Scott Kitterman , 2010-05-26, 17:43:
>>I means that the support tools for Python 3 should run in Python 3 As
>>an example, I've done a first cut at py3versions:
>>
>>http://www.kitterman.com/debian/
>
>Some remarks:
>
>- We probably want to get rid of "try: ... except Im
"Lino Mastrodomenico" wrote:
>2010/5/26 Scott Kitterman :
>> This would mean separate python-foo and python3-foo binaries where both are
>> supported from the same source.
>
>What will happen in the not-so-close future when Python 2.x is no
>longer supported? All the python3-foo binary packages
2010/5/26 Scott Kitterman :
> This would mean separate python-foo and python3-foo binaries where both are
> supported from the same source.
What will happen in the not-so-close future when Python 2.x is no
longer supported? All the python3-foo binary packages will be renamed
python-foo?
--
Lino
Hi, Jakub.
On May 26 2010, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Rogério Brito , 2010-05-26, 14:28:
> >I would like (in principle, barring technical limitations) to provide
> >such modules for any version of python that Debian supports,
> >agnostically.
>
> That's very nice of you. :)
Thank you very much. I wan
mh, probably I'm missing something:
- is pyimport-relative only available for 2.4?
- is pyimport-relative an incompatible implementation of relative
imports as present in python >=2.5 ?
- would it be possible to "port" to relative import as in python >=
2.5 and declare pydbgr as only available for
* Scott Kitterman , 2010-05-26, 17:43:
I means that the support tools for Python 3 should run in Python 3 As
an example, I've done a first cut at py3versions:
http://www.kitterman.com/debian/
Some remarks:
- We probably want to get rid of "try: ... except ImportError: ..."
compatibility tri
[Luca Falavigna, 2010-05-27]
> Personally, I think it's better asking pydbgr upstream to see if there's
> chance to adjust code to use relative imports provided by python2.5,
> unless implementation is way too different to be impossible to do otherwise.
... or not use relative imports at all
--
P
This is relative to pyimport-relative package, currently in NEW. These
are considerations taken with Debian maintainer, and before going any
further, I'd like to share some thoughts with Debian Python maintainers.
Il 12/05/2010 21.24, Yaroslav Halchenko ha scritto:
> Hi Luca,
>
> This package is
Hi Scott,
thanks for bringing this up.
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 23:43, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> This has been discussed a bit, but I'd like to see where Debian Python
> consensus is on this.
>
> I think users who don't care about Python 3 yet, should be able to have
> systems that don't pull any P
[Scott Kitterman, 2010-05-26]
> This would mean separate python-foo and python3-foo binaries where both are
> supported from the same source.
Can we agree to use "python3-foo" schema for *all* packages with Python
3.X modules? (I'm lazy and I want to reject RFS mails even faster -
noticing python
18 matches
Mail list logo
