On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 23:35, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Thursday, April 12, 2012 11:04:33 PM Sandro Tosi wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 22:50, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> > On Thursday, April 12, 2012 10:20:04 PM Sandro Tosi wrote:
>> >> To give a (fresh) example and what I meant above, you c
On Thursday, April 12, 2012 11:04:33 PM Sandro Tosi wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 22:50, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 12, 2012 10:20:04 PM Sandro Tosi wrote:
> >> To give a (fresh) example and what I meant above, you can try to
> >> answer this provocative question: Why Ubuntu
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 22:50, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Thursday, April 12, 2012 10:20:04 PM Sandro Tosi wrote:
>> To give a (fresh) example and what I meant above, you can try to
>> answer this provocative question: Why Ubuntu has Python 2.7.3 since
>> more than 2 days (even before it was publ
On Thursday, April 12, 2012 10:20:04 PM Sandro Tosi wrote:
> To give a (fresh) example and what I meant above, you can try to
> answer this provocative question: Why Ubuntu has Python 2.7.3 since
> more than 2 days (even before it was publicly announced) while Debian
> is still stuck with a RC, Fin
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 16:36, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> clarifying what the incompatibilities among the (potential) volunteers
> are.
>From my side, I don't think i'll have problems working with Barry, but
I honestly have to say we had few occasions to work together (that I
can remember, there
On Thursday, April 12, 2012 09:12:23 PM Sandro Tosi wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 16:13, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > I don't think that the *-defaults packages and the interpreter packages
> > fundamentally require the same maintainer, but I expect it to be
> > problematic to have different team
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 16:13, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> I don't think that the *-defaults packages and the interpreter packages
> fundamentally require the same maintainer, but I expect it to be problematic
> to have different teams maintain them if each team has the other as a member
> as
> they
/usr/lib/pyshared/python2.6/ -name \*.so -exec readelf -d {} \;
| grep SONAME | wc
73 3655333
After all this is a great that it was added to PTS :)
The latest lintian4python (0+20120412) will emit a pedantic tag for
such packages.
BTW, does anybody know how to stop libtool from a
On Apr 12, 2012, at 10:09 AM, Paul Elliott wrote:
>On Thursday, April 12, 2012 08:30:41 AM Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> Hi Paul,
>
>> I'm not sure what you mean by "no python3 program to test it". You can and
>> should create the Python 3 extension modules. `apt-get install python3`
>> should do the t
On Thursday, April 12, 2012 08:30:41 AM Barry Warsaw wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> I'm not sure what you mean by "no python3 program to test it". You can and
> should create the Python 3 extension modules. `apt-get install python3`
> should do the trick, right?
I mean that I have python 2 programs that u
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:13:02AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> I will be direct.
Thanks! I really appreciate.
> So far, the solicitation has been for co-maintainers with morph. I think it
> would only be fair to make a similar call for co-maintainers with doko.
... but hold right there :
On Thursday, April 12, 2012 11:25:07 AM Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2012 at 10:36:58AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > Allow me be blunt then: do we have volunteers to maintain the pythonX.Y
> > packages? Can those volunteers manifest themselves on this list?
>
> So, ~10 days
Hi Paul,
On Apr 12, 2012, at 02:09 AM, Paul Elliott wrote:
>A recent review of my package asked me to consider making a python3 version.
Excellent! One more down the road to Python 3 world domination. :)
>But the response below says that is difficult. It is several months old, has
>this chang
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Mathieu Malaterre , 2012-04-12, 09:04:
>
>> I am trying to remove the annoying 'todo' section of the gdcm package
>> page:
>>
>> http://packages.qa.debian.org/g/gdcm.html
>>
>> If this was a lintian false positive, one would use *.lintian-ove
Jakub,
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Mathieu Malaterre , 2012-04-11, 17:43:
>> dpkg-shlibdeps: warning:
>> debian/python-gdcm/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/_gdcmswig.so
>> contains an unresolvable reference to symbol PyObject_IsTrue: it's
>> probably a plugin.
>> dpkg-
* Mathieu Malaterre , 2012-04-12, 09:04:
I am trying to remove the annoying 'todo' section of the gdcm package
page:
http://packages.qa.debian.org/g/gdcm.html
If this was a lintian false positive, one would use *.lintian-overrides
file. However in this case I did not know what I need to do.
* Mathieu Malaterre , 2012-04-11, 17:43:
[CC me please]
[done]
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning:
debian/python-gdcm/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/_gdcmswig.so
contains an unresolvable reference to symbol PyObject_IsTrue: it's
probably a plugin.
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: 86 other similar warnings have
Il 03 aprile 2012 10:36, Stefano Zacchiroli ha scritto:
> If you volunteered in #573745 already, and you're still available,
> please reiterate your availability here.
I'm willing to help too, but I would limit by doing grunt work such as
bug triaging and cleanup.
I know this kind of work could a
On Tue, Apr 03, 2012 at 10:36:58AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Allow me be blunt then: do we have volunteers to maintain the pythonX.Y
> packages? Can those volunteers manifest themselves on this list?
So, ~10 days later this call, we've two volunteers: Sandro and Barry. If
no one else show
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
> I am trying to remove the annoying 'todo' section of the gdcm package page:
>
> http://packages.qa.debian.org/g/gdcm.html
>
> If this was a lintian false positive, one would use
> *.lintian-overrides file. However in this case I did not k
Paul,
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 11:43 PM, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
>
>> I am trying to remove the remaining warnings from the gdcm/python
>> package. They can be seen here:
>
> That is pretty normal for plugins on Linux; the symbols are provided
A recent review of my package asked me to consider making a python3 version.
But the response below says that is difficult. It is several months old, has
this changed?
The other problem is that the package is an extension and there is currently
no python3 program to test it. Should packagers c
My package distributes a pydoc directory, but setup.py does not rebuild it.
What is the usual way to rebuild this directory from scratch?
What is the proper way to publish the api info in this directory?
Is there a example package that does this stuff correctly?
Thank You for your response.
-
23 matches
Mail list logo
