[Sandro Tosi, 2010-09-16]
> Something I didn't find written anywhere and makes me wonder is:
> what's the gain for squeeze to have those new packages? is 3.1 being a
> supported version depending on those packages or viceversa? (after
> all, why have 3.1 as supported without any modules?)
Please r
Hello,
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 01:53, Matthias Klose wrote:
> In experimental you'll find a set of packages for Python3
>
> python3.1 3.1.2+20100909-1
> python3.2 3.2~a2-4
> python3-defaults 3.1.2-10
> python-defaults 2.6.6-2
> distribute 0.6.14-3
>
> The python3.2 package has the PEP's 3147
[Sandro Tosi, 2010-09-16]
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 09:26, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> > and then I will not ask you to test things written last
> > night (yeah, I have day job and real life as well)
>
> That's not a problem. What I want to know is if the guide you wrote is
> already working
yes, i
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 09:26, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> [Sandro Tosi, 2010-09-16]
>> From recent uploads, it seems that a proper python3 stack (i.e.
>> interpreter, -default and helper tools) is still a work-in-progress:
>> am I wrong on this? can we start to provide third-party modules py3k
>> bi
[Sandro Tosi, 2010-09-16]
> From recent uploads, it seems that a proper python3 stack (i.e.
> interpreter, -default and helper tools) is still a work-in-progress:
> am I wrong on this? can we start to provide third-party modules py3k
> binary packages without having to change several other times ho
5 matches
Mail list logo
