Hello, -python
I'd like to contribute to debian and be a part of Python Modules
Packaging Team. As my way in, I'd like to adopt python-simpy, maintained
by Nicolas Dandrimont in the past. I uploaded a new version of the
package with Simpy's new release on mentors.debian.net and Nicolas is
going to
On 2 May 2015 at 13:39, Geoffrey Thomas wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Apr 2015, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
>> I like it and I don't. If /usr/bin/python is ever going to point to a
>> non-
>> python2 version, then I think the solution is something like this. OTOH,
>> it
>> adds system complexity and presumab
Hi Barry (2015.05.02_04:37:08_+0200)
> I cloned the enum34.git repo, and then did an apt-get source to grab the
> orig.tar.gz. Then:
There are pristine-tar branches, so you should be able to
git-buildpackage -S and get orig tars from them.
SR
--
Stefano Rivera
http://tumbleweed.org.za/
+1
On Friday, May 01, 2015 10:37:08 PM Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Apr 30, 2015, at 12:46 AM, Stefano Rivera wrote:
> >Here's where I currently am (a migration of r32486):
> >https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/python-modules/svn-migration/
>
> I did a quick test of converting one of these repos to git-dpm.
On Apr 30, 2015, at 12:46 AM, Stefano Rivera wrote:
>Here's where I currently am (a migration of r32486):
>https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/python-modules/svn-migration/
I did a quick test of converting one of these repos to git-dpm.
I cloned the enum34.git repo, and then did an apt-get source to
On Sat, 18 Apr 2015, Scott Kitterman wrote:
I like it and I don't. If /usr/bin/python is ever going to point to a non-
python2 version, then I think the solution is something like this. OTOH, it
adds system complexity and presumably slows interpreter startup.
If the implementation were simple
On 1 May 2015 at 16:46, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> Also, I just saw that git-buildpackage(1) has gone away. It seem like all we
> have now is gbp(1) but that has a different cli, and I think it has pq
> built-in.
`gbp buildpackage` and `git-buildpackage` have identical options and
behaviour. The latt
On May 01, 2015, at 06:30 AM, Stefano Rivera wrote:
>The big difference would be SVN history. That's the interesting part of
>my import.
I wonder if there are opportunities to combine the two approaches?
>> Also, what about patch regime? The above sets up git-dpm early on,
>> including tag name
On Friday, May 01, 2015 01:28:43 PM Luca Falavigna wrote:
> 2015-04-26 18:26 GMT+02:00 Luca Falavigna :
> > Would it be better to start filing a MBF against the affected packages
>
> Is there consensus about this MBF? I'd like to work on it on the
> coming days, so please express your thoughts or
2015-04-26 18:26 GMT+02:00 Luca Falavigna :
> Would it be better to start filing a MBF against the affected packages
Is there consensus about this MBF? I'd like to work on it on the
coming days, so please express your thoughts or doubts ASAP :-)
Cheers,
Luca
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-
10 matches
Mail list logo
