"Andrey Rahmatullin" wrote:
>On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 01:08:34AM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote:
>> >How about supporting both python (default being Python 2.7) and
>python3
>> >(default being Python 3.x, x=2 in Wheezy?) forever as two separate
>> >languages?
>> That's the plan. Except maybe "forever"
On Jan 21, 2011, at 05:11 AM, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
>On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 01:08:34AM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote:
>> >How about supporting both python (default being Python 2.7) and python3
>> >(default being Python 3.x, x=2 in Wheezy?) forever as two separate
>> >languages?
>> That's the plan.
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 01:08:34AM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> >How about supporting both python (default being Python 2.7) and python3
> >(default being Python 3.x, x=2 in Wheezy?) forever as two separate
> >languages?
> That's the plan. Except maybe "forever" is exaggerated. We do hope
> that we'l
* Omer Zak , 2011-01-21, 00:52:
If I may make a radical suggestion though: what do you think about
making Python 3 the default for Wheezy?
over my dead body ;-P
Okay, then Wheezy+1 :)
How about supporting both python (default being Python 2.7) and python3
(default being Python 3.x, x=2 in W
On Thu, 2011-01-20 at 17:47 -0500, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Jan 20, 2011, at 11:16 PM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
>
> >[Barry Warsaw, 2011-01-20]
> >> If I may make a radical suggestion though: what do you think about making
> >> Python 3 the default for Wheezy?
> >
> >over my dead body ;-P
>
> Okay,
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "python-mongoengine".
* Package name : python-mongoengine
Version : 0.4
Upstream Author : Harry Marr
* URL : http://mongoengine.org/
* License : MIT
Programming Lang: Python
Description : A Python
On Jan 20, 2011, at 11:16 PM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
>[Barry Warsaw, 2011-01-20]
>> If I may make a radical suggestion though: what do you think about making
>> Python 3 the default for Wheezy?
>
>over my dead body ;-P
Okay, then Wheezy+1 :)
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
[Barry Warsaw, 2011-01-20]
> If I may make a radical suggestion though: what do you think about making
> Python 3 the default for Wheezy?
over my dead body ;-P
--
Piotr Ożarowski Debian GNU/Linux Developer
www.ozarowski.pl www.griffith.cc www.debian.org
On Jan 20, 2011, at 10:31 PM, Luca Falavigna wrote:
>Today there was a little discussion in #debian-python about Python plans
>as soon as wheezy cycle starts (as you know, that will probably happen
>on early february, see [0]), let's discuss it here to give people a
>chance to express their opinio
Today there was a little discussion in #debian-python about Python plans
as soon as wheezy cycle starts (as you know, that will probably happen
on early february, see [0]), let's discuss it here to give people a
chance to express their opinions.
It was initially proposed to drop both 2.5 and 2.6 t
On Jan 20, 2011, at 08:55 PM, Michael Fladischer wrote:
>Barry Warsaw, 2011-01-20 20:26:
>> On Jan 20, 2011, at 07:22 PM, Sandro Tosi wrote:
>>> Would it make sense to rename upstream module to importlib3 (to recall
>>> the fact it's a backport from py3k) and so it would importable also in
>>> 2.7
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jakub Wilk, 2011-01-19 23:49:
>>> Is there a better way to do this with python-support?
>
> I don't think so.
Thanks, I'll stick with manually defined Depends.
Regards,
- --
Michael Fladischer
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (G
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Barry Warsaw, 2011-01-20 20:26:
> On Jan 20, 2011, at 07:22 PM, Sandro Tosi wrote:
>> Would it make sense to rename upstream module to importlib3 (to recall
>> the fact it's a backport from py3k) and so it would importable also in
>> 2.7 along with the
On Jan 20, 2011, at 07:22 PM, Sandro Tosi wrote:
>Attention: stupid question coming.
Not at all!
>Would it make sense to rename upstream module to importlib3 (to recall
>the fact it's a backport from py3k) and so it would importable also in
>2.7 along with the stdlib 'importlib' module?
I think
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 17:58, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Jan 20, 2011, at 05:20 PM, Éric Araujo wrote:
>
>>This is not relevant to the question about the toolchain that you were
>>asking, but I’d like to point out that importlib in 2.7 is only a subset
>>of the version in 3.1 (precisely, importlib.
* Éric Araujo , 2011-01-20, 17:20:
I’d like to point out that importlib in 2.7 is only a subset
of the version in 3.1 (precisely, importlib.import_module only), so
packaging a full backport of importlib makes sense for 2.7 too.
python-import is not a full backport of 3.X's importlib. In fact,
On Jan 20, 2011, at 05:20 PM, Éric Araujo wrote:
>This is not relevant to the question about the toolchain that you were
>asking, but I’d like to point out that importlib in 2.7 is only a subset
>of the version in 3.1 (precisely, importlib.import_module only), so
>packaging a full backport of impo
> Following up #606711, I'd like to ask what's the best way to tailor
> python dependencies for a package when it's content is a backport of a
> future Debian default python (e.g. 2.7) feature?
>
> In the case of importlib, it's inclusion in upstream python started with
> 2.7 but I'd like to provi
18 matches
Mail list logo
