On Mon August 14 2006 00:03, Steve Langasek wrote:
> ... my premise
> that pure python modules should only declare Provides when something
> exists in the archive which actually *needs* them...
What of stuff which will never be in the archive?
["ask for it" is an obvious answer, so...]
Any though
opps, should have sent this one to the list
Sorry for the dup, Marc.
-- Forwarded Message --
Subject: Re: multiple pythons and the default
Date: Wed May 10 2006 14:31
From: Bruce Sass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Marc Dequènes (Duck) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Wed May 1
On Sun May 7 2006 10:49, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> Bruce Sass wrote:
> That impression is incorrect. There was a technical reason when the
> default was defined: it was the most recent version that tat time.
> The next default will have the same property: it will be the most recent
&
On Sun May 7 2006 01:46, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le dimanche 07 mai 2006 à 01:18 -0600, Bruce Sass a écrit :
> > With that in mind, is detecting and compiling for other interpreters still
> > much too error prone?
> >
> > - find a bin/pythonX.Y
> > - check
On Sat May 6 2006 06:55, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le samedi 06 mai 2006 à 04:29 -0600, Bruce Sass a écrit :
> > Is it unreasonable to want to install a module package which should work
> > with any Python and have *.pyc's automatically compiled for an
> > interpreter
On Sat May 6 2006 05:11, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Sat, 06 May 2006, Bruce Sass wrote:
> > I am wondering what defines the "default python", is it the one any
>
> /usr/bin/python provided by the "python" package. Right now it's 2.3.5.
So it is arbit
Hi,
I am wondering what defines the "default python", is it the one any
Python using Debian-native package must depend on, the one used by
python-support[1], the one all python dependent packages are urged to
work with, one meeting some other criteria, an arbitrary choice?
As I try to catch up
On Sat April 29 2006 16:01, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 06:28:32PM -0300, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:
> > Also, to make python-gtk2 support more than one version, we could
> > only achieve that by providing the extensions in a single package
> > or building them on install time
Hi,
On 16 Oct 2001, Jérôme Marant wrote:
<...>
> I installed both python1.5 and python2.1. And installing both on the same
> system broke _all_ my python 1.5 packages: this is the alternative issue
> Perl people have warned us about.
>
> I discovered that /usr/bin/python is pointing to pyt
On 14 Oct 2001, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Jérôme Marant writes:
> > > What about proposal and policy from Neil and his efforts?
> >
> > - the proposed packaging scheme doesn't allow smooth upgrades between
> > one python version and a next version. co
On Fri, 21 Sep 2001, Zooko wrote:
> I read the entire huge thread regarding Python 2.1, without really
> understanding the details. Then I looked at:
>
> http://people.debian.org/~nas/woody/
>
> 06-Sep-2001 14:08
>
> http://people.debian.org/~flight/python2/
>
> 17-Jun-2001 14:24
>
> http://people
On Thu, 6 Sep 2001, Neil Schemenauer wrote:
> Bruce Sass wrote:
> > The python-base package gives me python->python2.1, from Python-2.1.1.
> > What happens when I point python to python3.0, will pydoc still work.
>
> What happens when I point /usr/bin/perl to Perl 4? I t
On Thu, 6 Sep 2001, Neil Schemenauer wrote:
> dman wrote:
> > I think the admin should be able to choose which python implementation
> > is referred to by /usr/bin/python independent of which python (or
> > python-base if you prefer) packages are installed (the alternatives
> > mechanism may be a g
On Thu, 6 Sep 2001, Neil Schemenauer wrote:
> Bruce Sass wrote:
> > On Thu, 6 Sep 2001, Neil Schemenauer wrote:
> > > Again the package is python-base, not python2.2-base. pydoc depends on
> > > python-base_2.1.1 and uses #!/usr/bin/python. I don't see a problem
On 6 Sep 2001, Mikael Hedin wrote:
> So file bug on the packages in question. They could also depend on
> python(>=1.5), python(<<1.6). See my other postings on this.
I see it as the difference between putting a gate on the corral, and
running around trying to round up the livestock whenever th
On 6 Sep 2001, Mikael Hedin wrote:
> What about doing as gcc? Produce python-1.5, python-2.1 and so on
> forever. And then have a package python that just drags in the
> official version, and links /usr/bin/python. If we nuke python-base,
> all old modules get upgradrd I think. (Similar for py
On Thu, 6 Sep 2001, Neil Schemenauer wrote:
> Again the package is python-base, not python2.2-base. pydoc depends on
> python-base_2.1.1 and uses #!/usr/bin/python. I don't see a problem
> with that.
Except you don't know which Python /usr/bin/python is.
If you do: /usr/bin/python2.1 or /usr/bin
On Thu, 6 Sep 2001, Neil Schemenauer wrote:
> Bruce Sass wrote:
> > Any program that exists with Python dependent versions will need
> > multiple versions of Python packages. Maybe Zope today, who knows
> > what tomorrow. Either Debian supports multiple installed versions
On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, Neil Schemenauer wrote:
> Jérôme Marant:
> > The major question is: do we still need to ship 1.5.2? Unfortunately,
> > the old python seems to be necessary since some old packages are not
> > compatible with 2.x versions.
>
> Do you know of any? If you can point them out
On 4 Sep 2001, David Maslen wrote:
> Gregor Hoffleit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > How does that sound ?
>
> I think it sounds like an awful lot of work. I still don't really
> understand why we keep python1.5, but presumably there are some good
> reasons, and I trust the debian team to have thr
On Sat, 14 Jul 2001, D-Man wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 14, 2001 at 04:05:56PM +1200, Carey Evans wrote:
> | D-Man <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> |
> | > Yes. Maybe each extension should just depend on a single version of
> | > python and need to be rebuilt for each new python release.
> |
> | It makes thi
On Fri, 13 Jul 2001, D-Man wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2001 at 11:30:28PM +0200, Carel Fellinger wrote:
> | On Fri, Jul 13, 2001 at 03:25:20PM -0400, D-Man wrote:
> | ...
> | > o The #! line should look something like
> | > #!/usr/bin/deb_py_ver 1.5.2 -
> |
> | I can't get things like this t
On Thu, 12 Jul 2001, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> On Jul 12, Bruce Sass wrote:
> > bin/python.
> > and
> > bin/python
> >
> > as hardlinks...
> >
> > ...calling "python-wrapper" to execute the program is definately not
> > portab
On Thu, 12 Jul 2001, Carel Fellinger wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2001 at 09:03:07AM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> > Bruce Sass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Surely adopting a convention of...
> > >
> > > #!/usr/bin/env python[major.minor]
>
On 12 Jul 2001, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Bruce Sass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Surely adopting a convention of...
> >
> > #!/usr/bin/env python[major.minor]
> >
> > ...is preferable.
> >
> > It does the same thing without additiona
On Wed, 11 Jul 2001, Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
<...>
> > How to do this:
> > - Executables use #!/usr/bin/python-wrapper (*)
> > - Have a file /var/lib/python/wrapper-config (*) with
> > executable: version1, version2, ...
> > This is written by the postinst.
> > - Have a p
On Thu, 5 Jul 2001, Bruce Sass wrote:
> The problem with both the FAQ and Debian's Python is that they have
> been assuming nobody will ever have more than one Python on the
> system, and it will always be as recent as the most recent program...
> as long as the language is bac
On Thu, 5 Jul 2001, D-Man wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 05, 2001 at 06:43:08PM +0100, Aquarius wrote:
> | In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> | > I just browsed /usr/bin and /usr/sbin, and indeed there are plenty of
> | > scripts that use "#!/usr/bin/env python". If we consider the possibility
> | >
On Wed, 4 Jul 2001, Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> First of all the good news: You have managed to talk me into making the
> big step, and going right to the 2.1.1 CVS branch. Thomas Wouters
> (release czar for Python 2.1.1) assured me that 2.1.1 will be released
> before the freeze, and Guido heavily s
On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 05:37:36PM +0200, Radovan Garabik wrote:
> > I agree, but... why not wait until python 2.1.1 is released?
> > (or, if we just discuss things a bit, it will be
> > released before any action is taken and we can jump right
> > to i
Hi All,
Sorry 'bout the To: header... but it is (hmmm) inter-disciplinary, and
the topic appears neglected enough to warrant such drastic a action.
[feel free to give me a virtual slap-upside-the-head if I'm wrong]
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 21:58:42 -0500
From
Hi,
Here are a couple of files I've found useful and would like to see
included in the python*-base packages...
-8<--- /usr/share/apps/konsole/python-1.5.2.desktop -
[Desktop Entry]
Type=KonsoleApplication
Name=Python interpreter version 1.5.2
Comment=Python 1.5.2
Exec=/usr/bin/python1.5
On Sat, 24 Mar 2001, Moshe Zadka wrote:
<...>
> I do think we need somewhere where all the .pyc's are "registered",
"locate .pyc"; or maybe locate .py, .pyc, and .pyo files, then
reconcile the three lists.
> so when
> a new version of Python comes along, it can recompile them, since pycs
> are no
On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> > Has anyone compiled PyQt-2.3, what versions of Python and Qt did you
> > get it to work with?
>
> I played with -2.2. Someone just needs to make debian packages of these. I
> keep meaning to do so, but until pyKDE is updated to kde 1.2 level, I h
Hi,
I've just had an unsuccesful battle with x=ActivePython-2.0 and
y=Qt-2.2.3, the PyQt author figures ActivePython is the problem... so,
not only do they have really ugly .debs for potato (I appreciate that
they have provided them, too bad they are so badly done), they don't
seem to work with th
On Wed, 7 Feb 2001, Moshe Zadka wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Feb 2001 02:39:11 -0500, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > The binaries should be called python1.5 and python2.0, and python
> > should be a symlink to whatever is the default one.
>
> No they shouldn't. Joey Hess wrote to debian-
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 09:32:49PM +0200, Moshe Zadka wrote:
> > On Sat, 13 Jan 2001 16:25:44 -0800, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Is it possible for a program to use deprecated 1.5 things and
> > > not work with 2.0?
> > Possible, but extre
On Mon, 15 Jan 2001, Peter Eckersley wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 02:10:25PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> > You mean all python programs will work with 2.0 until 2.1 is out and
> > programs start using its features. At that point every problem I predicted
> > is going to bite you.
> >
>
> Exactl
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Radovan Garabik wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 12:30:49PM -0700, Bruce Sass wrote:
> > What's the story with Python 2.0...
>
> a long one, about licences and gpl compatibility...
Ya, well, in my mind "free license" is an oxymoron.
It makes no
Hi,
What's the story with Python 2.0...
are there any .debs around for Potato, or even the debianized source
(a quick peek showed only 1.5.2 in potato, testing and unstable)?
Have I missed a message about the location of py2.0 for Debian, or was I
struck blind when I checked the archives?
later,
On 10 Jun 2000, Andreas Voegele wrote:
> >> In my opinion, packages like "pygtk" and "pyqt" that add new
> >> modules to Python should always be renamed to "python-*" [...]
>
> > [...]
>
> > As far as finding stuff in dselect goes... try "/".
>
> That is what I'm doing. But dsele
On 9 Jun 2000, Andreas Voegele wrote:
> someone wrote:
> > I would rather not go for renaming upstream packages, to avoid
> > confusion.
>
> In my opinion, packages like "pygtk" and "pyqt" that add new modules
> to Python should always be renamed to "python-*" since it is much
> easier to
On Tue, 11 Jan 2000, Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> I have a quite urgent problem while polishing the new Python packages:
>
> Do we prefer our packages to use tk8.2 or on tk8.0 ?
<...>
> Any opinions ?
A quick peek at www.python.org reveals references to nothing later than
tk8.0.5, so tk8.0 would b
43 matches
Mail list logo
