Re: Proposed Email to the release team about XS/B-P-V

Le mercredi 23 juin 2010 à 21:17 -0400, Scott Kitterman a écrit : > >5. End this madness and use the version in build-dependencies instead of > >asking maintainers to specify it twice - which they usually do wrong. > > > With this approach then with the current python-defaults in Sid, how would >

Re: Proposed Email to the release team about XS/B-P-V

On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 12:44:36AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Wednesday, June 23, 2010 11:08:47 pm Paul Wise wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Scott Kitterman > wrote: > > > The email is meant to go to the release team to address what I understand > > > to be release team speci

Re: [Half-OT] Plone and: Re: python 2.6 deb for lenny ?

* 2010-06-23 21:17, Toni Mueller wrote: > Short story: I want to abandon the UI as soon as possible. Me too, TBH. But.. sorry, there is either plan buildout, or UI (which produces a buildout-ready environment). Everything else (eg. debian packages) has been labeled "messy", "unstable", "old" from

Re: Proposed Email to the release team about XS/B-P-V

On Wednesday, June 23, 2010 11:08:47 pm Paul Wise wrote: > On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > The email is meant to go to the release team to address what I understand > > to be release team specific requirement. I think that the broader > > question needs to be discuss

Re: Proposed Email to the release team about XS/B-P-V

On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > The email is meant to go to the release team to address what I understand to > be release team specific requirement.  I think that the broader question needs > to be discussed in a broader audience. I think it is relevant there as well,

Re: Proposed Email to the release team about XS/B-P-V

On Wednesday, June 23, 2010 10:01:03 pm Paul Wise wrote: > On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 1:15 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > In Debian Python we are currently discussing how best to specify version > > information for Python 3. There is a strong (but not unanimous) view > > among the participants in d

Re: Proposed Email to the release team about XS/B-P-V

On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 1:15 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > In Debian Python we are currently discussing how best to specify version > information for Python 3.  There is a strong (but not unanimous) view among > the participants in debian-pyt...@l.d.o and #debian-python that Python(2) and > Python

Re: Proposed Email to the release team about XS/B-P-V

"Josselin Mouette" wrote: >Le mercredi 23 juin 2010 à 13:15 -0400, Scott Kitterman a écrit : >> 1. Use XS/B-P-V for Python and Python3 versions >> 2. Create a new set of fields, XS/B-Python3-Version. >> 3. Create a new field, X-Python-Version: for Python3 versions. >> 4. Create a new field,

Re: Proposed Email to the release team about XS/B-P-V

Le mercredi 23 juin 2010 à 13:15 -0400, Scott Kitterman a écrit : > 1. Use XS/B-P-V for Python and Python3 versions > 2. Create a new set of fields, XS/B-Python3-Version. > 3. Create a new field, X-Python-Version: for Python3 versions. > 4. Create a new field, X-Python3-Version: for Python3 ver

Re: [Half-OT] Plone and: Re: python 2.6 deb for lenny ?

Hi, On Wed, 23.06.2010 at 19:49:04 +0200, Fabio Tranchitella wrote: > I personally use the unified installer with the system-wide python, using > --with-python; if you have system-wide python packages you don't want to > expose to the UI, you can use virtenv. well... that's a near miss. Maybe

Re: [Half-OT] Plone and: Re: python 2.6 deb for lenny ?

* 2010-06-23 19:34, Toni Mueller wrote: > Some of you recommended using the Unified Installer, which I have quite > mixed results with. I recently talked to a number of Zope and Plone > experts, who uninanimously recommended to stay clear of the UI. So I'm > back to square one, but I'd still like t

Re: Proposed Email to the release team about XS/B-P-V

"Piotr Ożarowski" wrote: >[Scott Kitterman, 2010-06-23] >> 3. Create a new field, X-Python-Version: for Python3 versions. This avoids >> concerns about control file bloat, but may be a bit confusing in combination >> with the existing XS/B-P-V. > >+ "Please note the lack of XB-Python-Versio

Re: Proposed Email to the release team about XS/B-P-V

[Scott Kitterman, 2010-06-23] > 3. Create a new field, X-Python-Version: for Python3 versions. This avoids > concerns about control file bloat, but may be a bit confusing in combination > with the existing XS/B-P-V. + "Please note the lack of XB-Python-Version, i.e. X-Python-Version will be us

Proposed Email to the release team about XS/B-P-V

Subj: Future requirements for specifying supported Python versions and transition support In Debian Python we are currently discussing how best to specify version information for Python 3. There is a strong (but not unanimous) view among the participants in debian-pyt...@l.d.o and #debian-pyth

[Half-OT] Plone and: Re: python 2.6 deb for lenny ?

Hi, On Wed, 21.04.2010 at 06:46:27 +0200, Fabio Tranchitella wrote: > * 2010-04-21 01:17, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: > > I think Fabio (kob...@d.o) also wanted to / is working on a backport, > > might make sense to co-maintain that with him. CCed him :) > > I'm definitely interested in co-maintaining

Re: XS-Python-Version: "current" fix

>> While "current" is frowned upon[0], this is not what caused your package >> breakage. The culprit it that scripts have #!/usr/bin/pythonX.Y shebangs - >> if they were unversioned, the package would continue to work with new >> Python. > > Those are changed by python distutils, that's why a rebu

Re: XS-Python-Version: "current" fix (was: Re: RFS: deejayd (updated package))

> While "current" is frowned upon[0], this is not what caused your package > breakage. The culprit it that scripts have #!/usr/bin/pythonX.Y shebangs - > if they were unversioned, the package would continue to work with new > Python. Those are changed by python distutils, that's why a rebuild fixe

Re: Request to join the Python Modules Packaging Team

On Wednesday 23 June 2010 12:27:05 Piotr Ożarowski wrote: > [Daniele Tricoli, 2010-06-23] > > I would be glad to join the Python Modules Packaging Team. > > I will add you this evening. Many thanks!!! :) > > I immagine I have to send an ITA for pywavelets, right? > > I hope you mean to *rename*

Re: XS-Python-Version: "current" fix (was: Re: RFS: deejayd (updated package))

"Alexandre Rossi" wrote: >Hi, > >The current version of my package does not launch in unstable >following the switch of the current python version. I think it is >because of the "current" keyword in the "XS-Python-Version" tag. A >rebuild fixes the problem. > >Is this appropriate fix? >-XS-Pyth

Re: XS-Python-Version: "current" fix (was: Re: RFS: deejayd (updated package))

* Alexandre Rossi , 2010-06-23, 10:53: The current version of my package does not launch in unstable following the switch of the current python version. I think it is because of the "current" keyword in the "XS-Python-Version" tag. A rebuild fixes the problem. Is this appropriate fix? -XS-Python

Re: Request to join the Python Modules Packaging Team

Hi Daniele, On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 12:04, Daniele Tricoli wrote: > I immagine I have to send an ITA for pywavelets, right? yep, that's the right next-step to do :) Cheers, -- Sandro Tosi (aka morph, morpheus, matrixhasu) My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/ Me at Debian: http://wiki.

Request to join the Python Modules Packaging Team

Hello everyone! I would be glad to join the Python Modules Packaging Team. I would like to start taking care of #579114 continuing to maintain it as part of the Debian Python Modules Team and packaging pyth[1], a module "intended to make it easy to convert marked-up text between different com

XS-Python-Version: "current" fix (was: Re: RFS: deejayd (updated package))

Hi, The current version of my package does not launch in unstable following the switch of the current python version. I think it is because of the "current" keyword in the "XS-Python-Version" tag. A rebuild fixes the problem. Is this appropriate fix? -XS-Python-Version: current, >= 2.4 +XS-Python