On 25 August 2015 at 11:49, Thomas Kluyver wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015, at 04:30 PM, Robert Collins wrote:
>> c) write convoluted tricky code to workaround the bugs and differing
>> behaviour on 3.4 vs 3.5.
>
> I use unittest.mock from Python 3.4 on several packages, and it has not
> required co
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015, at 04:30 PM, Robert Collins wrote:
> c) write convoluted tricky code to workaround the bugs and differing
> behaviour on 3.4 vs 3.5.
I use unittest.mock from Python 3.4 on several packages, and it has not
required convoluted code. I would be very surprised if that code breaks
On Aug 25, 2015, at 11:30 AM, Robert Collins wrote:
>Except that that will break: mock in 3.4 vs 3.5 are different.
Then they aren't the same . So it sounds like it doesn't make sense to
remove python3-mock from Debian.
Cheers,
-Barry
pgpV2khUPaCtA.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On 25 August 2015 at 11:23, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Aug 25, 2015, at 10:45 AM, Robert Collins wrote:
>
>>Lets take Ironic. While it supports Python 2.7+ and 3.4+ it will
>>depend on 'mock' for unit testing.
>
> That's not unreasonable, and different upstreams will have different policies,
> but i
On Aug 25, 2015, at 10:45 AM, Robert Collins wrote:
>Lets take Ironic. While it supports Python 2.7+ and 3.4+ it will
>depend on 'mock' for unit testing.
That's not unreasonable, and different upstreams will have different policies,
but if it was *my* upstream package, I'd probably do a condition
On 25 August 2015 at 10:37, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Aug 25, 2015, at 10:03 AM, Robert Collins wrote:
>
>>On 25 August 2015 at 09:57, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>>...
>>> By all means, if there isn't any
>>> significant difference between a standalone package and what's available in
>>> the current sup
On Aug 25, 2015, at 10:03 AM, Robert Collins wrote:
>On 25 August 2015 at 09:57, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>...
>> By all means, if there isn't any
>> significant difference between a standalone package and what's available in
>> the current supported Python 3 version, let's not ship unnecessary binar
On 25 August 2015 at 09:57, Barry Warsaw wrote:
...
> By all means, if there isn't any
> significant difference between a standalone package and what's available in
> the current supported Python 3 version, let's not ship unnecessary binary
> packages.
Even at the cost of having to patch upstrea
On Aug 19, 2015, at 06:41 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
>As a Debian developer you are duplicating code, and no, I don't think that
>providing this code under a different name is different enough to rectify
>distribution of this code in Debian.
In some cases however, the standalone library moves ahea
Thanks for the summary Piotr! I was really sorry I couldn't make Debconf this
year.
On Aug 24, 2015, at 11:08 PM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
>Python 3.5 as supported
>===
>
>python3-defaults in experimental already has 3.5 as supported. Ubuntu did
>this change as well and report
Just a quick follow-up I've been meaning to send.
On Jul 02, 2015, at 03:55 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>As part of the 3.5 test rebuild I noticed an incompatibility with
>python3-enum, which I reported upstream. The response was: there's actually
>no reason to have a Python 3 version of enum in any
Last Tuesday (2015-08-18) we had a Python BoF at DebConf15 discussing
various Debian Python related topics. You can download a recording of
it from here¹ or here² thanks to our amazing Video Team.
Short summary:
removing python-support from the archive
We
12 matches
Mail list logo
