On Tue, 7 May 2013 02:20:43 Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Dmitry Smirnov , 2013-05-07, 02:12:
> >When convenient please remove old "xpra" package repository from
> >
> > http://svn.debian.org/viewsvn/python-apps/packages/xpra/trunk/
> >
> >All Xpra maintainers agreed with this decision but I can't remo
* Steve Langasek , 2013-05-06, 14:52:
Unless this upload has materially impacted your packages due to a lack
of coordination - and I don't see how it could, given that this is an
obvious change to make, and can't possibly have interfered with other
transitions given that it comes at the beginni
On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 10:15:42PM +0200, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> The lack of discussion, as mandated by TC.
The resolution refers to the "interpreter packages". The python
metapackages were already under team maintenance at the time of this
resolution and were out of scope for the decision. While
* Piotr Ożarowski , 2013-05-06, 23:17:
What's the current status of pybuild and what should we do to adopt
it over and above general dh_python2/3 adoption?
--buildsystem=pybuild doesn't imply --with python2,python3 (hi Jakub!
:) but maybe we should consider it for debian/compat=10 since other
h
[Jakub Wilk, 2013-05-06]
> * Piotr Ożarowski , 2013-05-06, 20:02:
> >>What's the current status of pybuild and what should we do to
> >>adopt it over and above general dh_python2/3 adoption?
> >--buildsystem=pybuild doesn't imply --with python2,python3 (hi
> >Jakub! :)
>
> Hi Piotr[0]!
>
> >but m
On May 06, 2013, at 10:37 PM, Jakub Wilk wrote:
>* Luca Falavigna , 2013-05-05, 11:34:
>>Feel free to add more points :)
>
>If you say so! Let's remove dh_python!
>http://lintian.debian.org/tags/dh_python-is-obsolete.html
Added to the wiki page.
>
>>Although python-support has been deprecated by
* Luca Falavigna , 2013-05-05, 11:34:
Feel free to add more points :)
If you say so! Let's remove dh_python!
http://lintian.debian.org/tags/dh_python-is-obsolete.html
Although python-support has been deprecated by its maintainers, it's
still used by a large portion of Python packages in Debia
The lack of discussion, as mandated by TC.
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Do you object to the dropping of 2.6 or just the lack of discussion before it
> was done?
>
> Scott K
>
> On Monday, May 06, 2013 09:29:11 AM Sandro Tosi wrote:
>> Hello,
>> has this been discussed
* Piotr Ożarowski , 2013-05-06, 20:02:
What's the current status of pybuild and what should we do to adopt it
over and above general dh_python2/3 adoption?
--buildsystem=pybuild doesn't imply --with python2,python3 (hi Jakub!
:)
Hi Piotr[0]!
but maybe we should consider it for debian/compat=1
On May 06, 2013, at 08:02 PM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
>with pybuild in unstable it should be a lot easier to add python3-foo
>packages (just add binary package in debian/control, build depend on
>python3-all-dev, use --buildsystem=pybuild in debian/rules and add some
>.install files / export PYBUIL
On May 06, 2013, at 07:59 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
>this is something to decide once 3.4 is feature complete, a test rebuild was
>done, and fixes for build failures are uploaded to the archive. So do you
>volunteer doing that?
This is another good reason to expand test coverage in package build
[Barry Warsaw, 2013-05-06]
> * For those packages which have upstream support for Python 3, let's work on
> getting that into Debian where missing.
with pybuild in unstable it should be a lot easier to add python3-foo
packages (just add binary package in debian/control, build depend on
python3-a
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Am 06.05.2013 19:45, schrieb Tshepang Lekhonkhobe:
>> On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>>> * Python 3.4 beta 1 is currently scheduled for November 23, 2013. What
>>> should
>>> our plans be related to 3.4? My current
Am 06.05.2013 19:45, schrieb Tshepang Lekhonkhobe:
> On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> * Python 3.4 beta 1 is currently scheduled for November 23, 2013. What
>> should
>> our plans be related to 3.4? My current thinking is that we could support
>> 3.4 but not make it th
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> * Python 3.4 beta 1 is currently scheduled for November 23, 2013. What should
> our plans be related to 3.4? My current thinking is that we could support
> 3.4 but not make it the default.
Why not make 3.4 default and get rid of 3.3 as w
* Dmitry Smirnov , 2013-05-07, 02:12:
When convenient please remove old "xpra" package repository from
http://svn.debian.org/viewsvn/python-apps/packages/xpra/trunk/
All Xpra maintainers agreed with this decision but I can't remove the
above repository myself as I'm not a member of team.
Dear team,
When convenient please remove old "xpra" package repository from
http://svn.debian.org/viewsvn/python-apps/packages/xpra/trunk/
All Xpra maintainers agreed with this decision but I can't remove the
above repository myself as I'm not a member of team.
Some time ago we moved Xpra
Do you object to the dropping of 2.6 or just the lack of discussion before it
was done?
Scott K
On Monday, May 06, 2013 09:29:11 AM Sandro Tosi wrote:
> Hello,
> has this been discussed *and* agreed on? I can only see Luca's mail
> for python plans, but no ack from other "members of the debian p
I just created this wiki page to track our ideas. Details needed!
http://wiki.debian.org/Python/JessieRoadmap
-Barry
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.or
On May 05, 2013, at 11:34 AM, Luca Falavigna wrote:
>python2.6 removal
>---
>
>Unfortunately, python2.6 has been released with Wheezy as supported
>version. I think we all agree it should be removed as soon as possible
>to avoid maintaining a Python major version which is n
On May 06, 2013, at 03:13 AM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
>Python2.6 security support ends in October 2013 upstream. Which is
>well ahead of jessie freeze & release. From security point of view
>alone, it would be unwise to ship python2.6 in jessie. Which imho is
>serious enough reason to remove pytho
* Dmitrijs Ledkovs [2013-05-06 03:13:47 -0700]:
> On 6 May 2013 00:29, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> > Hello,
> > has this been discussed *and* agreed on? I can only see Luca's mail
> > for python plans, but no ack from other "members of the debian python
> > board" nor the ACK from RT.
> >
>
> Python2.
On 6 May 2013 00:29, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> Hello,
> has this been discussed *and* agreed on? I can only see Luca's mail
> for python plans, but no ack from other "members of the debian python
> board" nor the ACK from RT.
>
Python2.6 security support ends in October 2013 upstream. Which is
well ah
* Luca Falavigna , 2013-05-05, 11:34:
Unfortunately, python2.6 has been released with Wheezy as supported
version. I think we all agree it should be removed as soon as possible
to avoid maintaining a Python major version which is no longer
supported upstream. I think this could be done quite so
Hello,
has this been discussed *and* agreed on? I can only see Luca's mail
for python plans, but no ack from other "members of the debian python
board" nor the ACK from RT.
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 3:18 AM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Format: 1.8
> Da
25 matches
Mail list logo
