Hi,
I will be away from my email from 18 May until 31 May. If something
urgent occurs with one of my packages, please NMU. In the case of
Python, Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is your preferred contact of
course.
Gregor
PS: I will be in Alicante, Spain during that time (perhaps with vi
* Bastian Kleineidam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020111 11:41]:
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 09:28:30PM +0300, Mikhail Sobolev wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 06:29:58PM +0100, Bastian Kleineidam wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 05:25:43PM +, Luigi Ballabio wrote:
> > > > on alpha debian,
* Rick Pasotto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011226 18:11]:
> I just apt-get upgraded my python and the MySQLdb module now
> gives the following error:
>
> Python 2.1.1 (#1, Nov 11 2001, 18:19:24)
> [GCC 2.95.4 20011006 (Debian prerelease)] on linux2
> Type "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more info
* Ben Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [02 19:20]:
>
> > c) A wrapper that auto-detects the format of the .pyc file and calls the
> > according variant (detection of the .pyc format should be pretty easy,
> > it's just a magic number, cf. /usr/share/misc/magic).
>
> Hm, I'll try and find some docum
* Ben Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [02 18:22]:
>
> Hi. So I'm packaging decompyle which decompiles a .pyc bytecode file and
> converts it back to python source.
>
> Thing is, decompyle needs to be run with the same version of python that was
> used to create the bytecode.
>
> So the questio
* Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011107 16:08]:
> Gregor Hoffleit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> > Python 1.6.1 is essentially the same as Python 1.6, with a few minor
> >> > bug fixes, and with a different license that enables late
* Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011107 15:04]:
> Neil Schemenauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > It's probably better to check if you're unsure rather than speculate or
> > guess. From the 2.1.1 LICENCE file:
> >
> > Python 1.6.1 is essentially the same as Python 1.6, with a few mino
* Ben Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011029 15:46]:
>
> > > Also, someone else reported that lintian complains against
> > > Depends: python (>= 2.1), python (<< 2.2)
> >
> > This is a lintian bug. It's not bothering to notice that one's a less-than
> > and the other's a greater-than.
>
> Btw, isn't
I've put a version 0.3.6 of the Python Policy Draft on
http://people.debian.org/~flight/python/. The version is still a little
bit rough and sometimes incomplete, but it already gives a good outline
of the Python packaging system we are installing just now.
Please have a look at the document, and
I've put a version 0.3.6 of the Python Policy Draft on
http://people.debian.org/~flight/python/. The version is still a little
bit rough and sometimes incomplete, but it already gives a good outline
of the Python packaging system we are installing just now.
Please have a look at the document, and
* Anthony Towns [011023 17:22]:
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2001 at 02:42:42PM +0200, Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> > Just to make the discussion a little bit more focussed: I think several
> > issues were mixed up in my original mail:
>
> Sounds like a plan.
>
> > (1) For
* Anthony Towns [011023 09:07]:
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2001 at 01:31:50AM -0400, David M. Cooke wrote:
> > At some point, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Again, _why_ does this matter? Who does this? Is it even remotely common?
> > > That people would even consider installing another version of python in
>
* Neil Schemenauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011022 17:47]:
> Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 10:13:17AM +0200, Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> > > Say, you would install 2.1.2 in /usr/local.
> >
> > How about we just say "Don't inst
* Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011017 08:31]:
> Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Quoted from Gregor:
>
> "
> Python package maintainers should then change their packages to build
> python1.5-* and python2.1-* packages (python2.0 if needed), and make
> them depend on python1.5-bas
* Neil Schemenauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010907 00:33]:
> I see now that the python2 packages made it into unstable. This is a
> mistake IMHO. The Perl guys tryed this and it didn't work. Also, the
> name should have been python2.1 not python2. What problem does naming
> the packages "python2" s
* Neil Schemenauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010906 16:27]:
> Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> > Have you looked at my experimental Python packages, at
> > http://people.debian.org/~flight/python/snapshot/ ? I haven't yet tried
> > your packages, but it sounds like you started
* Neil Schemenauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010906 16:01]:
> Carey Evans wrote:
> > I've had a look at these packages myself. Can you tell us what stage
> > they're at, i.e. what still needs to be done, what problems you know
> > about and what you want to hear about?
>
> I thought my first message e
* Neil Schemenauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010906 01:05]:
> Before I spend too much time on this, is there a problem with this
> approach? It seems to be much simpler than using versioned packages for
> everything Python related. I'm especially interested in Gregor's
> opinion since he maintains a l
* Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010904 11:18]:
> Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> ...
> > in June (2.1) and July (2.1.1). Gregor (the python-1.5 and python-2.0
> > maintainer) has put experimental packages at
> > http://people.debian.org/~flight/python and was asking for help
>
Hi,
I'm struggling with a simple case of 'What-APT-Does-Is-Not-What-I-mean'
while preparing the dependencies for the Python upgrade:
In potato, we had packages python-base and idle (and a variety of other
python-* packages). Now these packages will be renamed python1.5-base
and idle-python1.5 (an
I have uploaded an improved version (1.5.2-17.0.1) of the python1.5
packages to people.debian.org:
http://people.debian.org/~flight/python/snapshots/python1.5/
Again, the packages are not intended for public consumption.
The major change is the introduction of empty transitional packages
pyt
* Radovan Garabik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010726 18:49]:
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 05:24:04PM +0200, Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> > Then, we still have to agree on a strategy how to set up the
> > dependencies, in order to make the upgrade work in an intuitive way.
> >
&g
Cyrille, I's sure you don't mind quoting your mail in debian-python:
* Cyrille Chepelov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010726 21:10]:
> Le jeu, jui 26, 2001, à 05:24:04 +0200, Gregor Hoffleit a écrit:
> > It's been much too long since I posted the last status report. I'm
It's been much too long since I posted the last status report. I'm
swamped with all kinds of real world work, and wasn't really able to
keep up in time with the discussion.
Reading the discussion, I thought that in order to consolidate a Python
policy, it might help to collect the information in a
[... just recovering from LT2k++ and other recreational things ;-)]
Thanks, Chris for your suggestions:
On Wed, Jul 04, 2001 at 09:00:06PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> My semi-well-thought-out solution:
>
> - python-* should provide a "Standard" Python for each Debian
> release. 2.1.1 seems
about python packages based on this branch? I has
> the advantage of a recent version which can go into woody.
I guess this answers that question:
On Wed, Jul 04, 2001 at 01:31:21PM +0200, Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> First of all the good news: You have managed to talk me into making the
> big ste
Package: lintian
Version: 1.20.13
Severity: normal
Lintian should include a check for correct dependencies of Python
extension packages. The rule is like follows:
Any package that installs stuff in /usr/lib/pythonX.Y/site-packages must
have a dependency on:
python-base >= X.Y, python-base <<
On Thu, Jul 05, 2001 at 05:33:37PM +0200, Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 05, 2001 at 07:56:57AM -0700, Neil Schemenauer wrote:
> > > That's our current setup (well-behaved packages should have a dependency
> > > on "python-base >= 1.5, python-base &l
On Thu, Jul 05, 2001 at 07:56:57AM -0700, Neil Schemenauer wrote:
> Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> > Sorry ? What problems do you have installing Python 2.1 in /usr/local on
> > a Debian system ?
>
> Sometimes /usr/local/bin/python is used instead of /usr/bin/python. For
> ex
On Thu, Jul 05, 2001 at 07:13:54AM -0700, Neil Schemenauer wrote:
> Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> > Until now I had the impression that in general it's not necessary to
> > have more than one Python version on your machine at the same time
> > (except perhaps you're a P
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 supported that.
Now for the bad news: I don't have a
On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 05:42:30PM +0200, Radovan Garabik wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 05:21:39PM +0200, Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> >
> > With the default setup, stuff in /usr/lib/python1.5/site-packages would be
> > ignored by 2.0.1. In order to make the transition ea
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 it :-))
>
> You still need to modify packages when goi
On Tue, Jun 26, 2001 at 12:47:28AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 04:36:28PM +0200, Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> > This would mean that I upload new versions of the Python packages:
> > (1) python2 (python2-base etc.) would be removed
> > (2) python 2.0
Hi,
Python 2.0.1 is out, finally with a GPL compatible license. Zope 2.3.3 works
fine with Python 2.0; I'm not aware of any problems with Debian packages
wrt. Python 2.x. That nullifies all reasons for the existance of dual Python
packages in Debian (cf. /usr/share/doc/python2/README.why-python2)
On Sun, Jun 03, 2001 at 07:06:09PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Gregor Hoffleit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> This is probably correct, but it is completely irrelevant in our case.
>>> Some parts of Python 2.1 are still covered by the GPL-incompatible
>&g
I have uploaded experimental Python 2.1 packages. Grab them at
http://people.debian.org/~flight/python2/
The packages are completely untested. I had to re-implement the building of
the shared library (just finished), the remainder of the packages is mostly
unchanged.
In a few hours, I will l
Hi Moshe,
I'm trying to lay out a schedule for the Debian Python packages in woody. My
plan would also depend on the release date of Python 2.0.1. Thomas Wouters
wrote: "Another couple of weeks at least, before a release candidate. It
also depends on Moshe; if he actually releases 2.0.1 anytime so
On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 01:02:29PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Gregor Hoffleit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I talked to RMS, Eben Moglen and GvR. The bad news: According to RMS+Moglen,
> > the license used in Python 2.1 still is not yet compatible with the GPL. Th
lease plan. He'd like to inform the release managers
of 2.0.1 and 2.1.1, and seemed to be quite interested to make sure that the
next release of Debian will contain a fixed version:
On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 04:32:13PM +0200, Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 09:48:38AM -0500
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 03:21:32PM -0600, Bruce Sass wrote:
> Here are a couple of files I've found useful and would like to see
> included in the python*-base packages...
Hi Bruce,
would you mind to file an "wishlist" bug report for this ? Just to make sure
that I won't forget it.
Gregor
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 10:04:24AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> D-Man <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 10:25:52PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > | Steve Purcell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > |
> > | > Licenses aside, there are the same technical issues with Python 2
On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 08:26:00AM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
>
> On 18-Apr-2001 Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 03:33:45PM +0200, Vasko Miroslav wrote:
> >> as Python 2.1 is out, there is no need to keep Python2 and Python152
> >>
On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 03:33:45PM +0200, Vasko Miroslav wrote:
> as Python 2.1 is out, there is no need to keep Python2 and Python152
> in Debian, I think.
>
> it looks like 2.1 has GPL-compatible license (it has, in fact, three
> licenses)
Thanks for pointing out the changes in LICENSE. Since t
Hi,
the BTS still holds my ITP to package JPython (nowadays called Jython).
Jython is an implementation of the Python language in pure Java, see
http://www.jython.org/.
As much as I'm interested in the issues involved with a painless coexistence
of C-Python and Jython on Debian, I haven't really
On Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 08:25:57AM +0200, Moshe Zadka wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, Gregor Hoffleit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > currently, our Python packages mostly ship .py files and compile them into
> > ..pyc files at run time in order to save space in the d
Hi,
currently, our Python packages mostly ship .py files and compile them into
.pyc files at run time in order to save space in the debs.
There's no reason, though, to keep the .py files on machines that only
deploy software[1]
I wonder if I should debconf-ify python-base and add an debconf opti
On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 09:00:38AM -0800, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
>
> On 28-Feb-2001 Jérôme Marant wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Would you think great to have 4Suite (http://www.4suite.org) in Debian ?
> > As 4DOM was included in Python-xml, we could simply remove it from 4Suite
> > add a
I'd like to warn you that I'm going to merge the contents of python-zlib
into python-base. python-zlib is very small, and since zlib1g is now
'standard' anyway, it won't introduce a significant penalty to the
python-base package.
I noticed that task-python-dev, task-python-bundle and routeplanner
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 04:24:03PM +0100, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> > Is there any reason for you to include this choice of law clause anyway, if
> > you don't live in Virginia ?
>
> I have to make the governing law the German law since that is whe
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 03:34:07PM +0100, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> Here's the "problem" I have: I want to put my code under a license
> similar to the Python 2 license (that is including the choice of
> law clause which caused all this trouble).
Why don't you simply remove the first sentence of th
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 01:51:14PM +0100, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> >
> > If somebody could give me a legal advice that the Python license is in fact
> > compatible with the GPL, and if this was accepted by the guys at
> > debian-legal@lists.debian
efault.
It's the duty of maintainers of other packages to check if their license
if compatible with the Python 2.x license, and then to repackage it
accordingly (cf. python2/README.maintainers for hints).
Jan 11, 2001
Gregor Hoffleit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Last modified: 2000-01-11
Hi Mike,
On Sat, Jan 13, 2001 at 01:44:36PM -0800, Mike Markley wrote:
> You may want to hold off on that for a few days while I work out the strange
> bug that's preventing tcl8.3 from building only on m68k. That bug is the
> principal reason that tcl8.3 and tk8.3 aren't yet in testing, but Roman
On Sat, Jan 13, 2001 at 04:41:09AM -0600, Gordon Sadler wrote:
> Package: python2-tk
> Version: N/A; reported 2001-01-13
> Severity: normal
>
> I haven't installed these from unstable yet. But I have had python1.52
> and python2 from p.d.o/~flight, both downloaded as source and rebuilt
> locally w
e).
- Readline support, python-gdbm and python-mpz have been removed, since they
involve GPL code owned by the FSF.
- The SSL module will be packaged separately, since it has to go into
non-US.
Please report any problems or suggestions to me.
Gregor
--
Gregor HoffleitMe
eter with a GPL
> > compatible license.
>
> in 1998 I convertedthe scripts to use the re module and the package
> format. Unfortunately I don't have this code anymore. You may ask
> Gregor (flight); I think he added some documentation for the modules.
--
[ Gregor Hoffleit
On Thu, Feb 17, 2000 at 11:39:06AM +0100, Christian Leutloff wrote:
> for ZOPE exists many many so called products that extends the
> functionality. Some are already available for Debian: zope-mysqlda,
> zope-pygresqld, zope-siteacces, zope-tinytable. Are there any plans to
> pack more of the avail
Hi,
I just wanted to draw your attention to a bug report I submitted into the
Python BTS (Bug #196; currently available as
http://www.python.org/python-bugs/incoming?id=196;user=guest).
I describe that the combination of Python 1.5.2, LinuxThreads and readline
support has strange effects to the s
On Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 04:00:01PM -0500, David Coe wrote:
> This sounds like a task package to me, too, but maybe I misunderstand
> what you said; would it include anything besides the dependencies?
>
> Also note that we still have (well, recently had, at least) some packages
> which depend on
David,
are you still working on these task-python* packages ? It would be nice if
we could get them into potato.
Gregor
On Tue, Oct 26, 1999 at 06:03:10AM +, David Coe wrote:
> I'm building the task-python packages, have a few questions, and would
> like your suggestions for improvement
I'd like to hear your comments about a change which may or may not make it
into potato:
Currently "python" is an virtual package only, provided by python-base. I'd
like to turn "python" into a real package with the upcoming new revision of
the Python packages:
Package: python
Source: python
Depe
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 ?
Python's Tkinter extension module (package python-tk) needs to be linked to
libtk. I wonder if I should stay with libtk8.0 or switch to libtk8.2 for the
final potato package
Hi,
I keep getting grave bug reports on the libapache-mod-python module. I don't
use this module myself anymore, and I don't have much time to spend on it
nor do I have much experience with debugging Apache modules.
If somebody is interested in taking over the package, or at least debugging
it, p
On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 08:59:46PM +0200, Martin Bialasinski wrote:
> Section: devel
> Priority: optional
> Standards-Version: 2.4.0.0
>
> Package: task-python
> Version: 0.1
> Maintainer: Martin Bialasinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Depends: python-base, python-dev, python-misc, python-net, python-tk
Just in case you don't see the announcement: I've uploaded a Python PAM
module, python-pam, to potato. This module allows you to access the PAM
authentification services from a Python program.
Since PAMification is a potential release goal, maintainers of Python
packages that employ authentificati
On Wed, Jul 14, 1999 at 10:29:08AM -0700, Mike Orr wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 1999 at 10:07:47AM -0500, Debian Developer wrote:
> > Anybody thinking of adding zope www.zope.org into Potato ?
>
> No, but it would be great if we did. I'm not enough of a programmer to
> do this, though.
This is my pr
FYI: Alexander Reelsen filed bug#41113 against debian-policy, which
is of interest for debian-java, debian-python as well as debian-perl:
On Sun, Jul 11, 1999 at 11:10:22PM +0200, Alexander Reelsen wrote:
> The following is a proposal to add some rules to the debian policy concerning
> the naming
There were two significant problems in the first round of the packages
I announced yesterday, therefore an silent update: Again,
http://www.debian.org/~flight/python/
or
deb http://www.debian.org/~flight/python ./
First, I have removed the superfluous idle.1 man pages from all other
packag
I have prepared a new revision of Python packages. I would have
uploaded them to master, but I'm running into problems with dpkg
upgrading (apt seems to work fine).
The packages are available via http:
http://www.debian.org/~flight/python/
apt should also work:
deb http://www.debian.org/~fl
rrors were encountered while processing:
python-base_1.5.2-4_i386.deb
For the sake of completeness, this is dpkg -s python-{bsddb,curses}:
Package: python-bsddb
Status: install ok installed
Priority: optional
Section: interpreters
Installed-Size: 28
Maintainer: Gregor Hoffleit <[EMAIL PROTECT
Hi,
I'd like to merge back some python packages (python-net, python-misc,
python-bsddb and python-curses) into python-base.
Now quite a lot third-party packages depend e.g. on python-net. What's
the best method to ensure a smooth transition for both potato and
people upgrading Python from slink,
On Wed, Apr 14, 1999 at 07:03:09PM -0400, Joe Block wrote:
> Paul Stevens wrote:
> >
> > > I seem to remember there is now a complete info set, which I sure
> > > would like to install for use within {x,}emacs, but I don't know how
> > > many of debian/python users would find a need for it.
> >
>
I finally found the time to read the glibc2.1 documentation regarding
the changes to the db interfaces. Now I'm left with a problem:
In glibc2.1 (which is used in potato for all architectures ??), the
old Berkeley DB code (aka db1) has been replaced with code from
Sleepycat (aka db2).
The intern
On Wed, Apr 14, 1999 at 09:15:53AM +0200, Paul Stevens wrote:
>
> > I seem to remember there is now a complete info set, which I sure
> > would like to install for use within {x,}emacs, but I don't know how
> > many of debian/python users would find a need for it.
>
> I do. Please do include info
On Tue, Apr 13, 1999 at 09:05:36AM -0700, Mike Orr wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 13, 1999 at 01:35:02PM +0200, Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> > I have put together a set of experimental Python 1.5.2c1 packages. To use
> > them with apt, try the following line:
> >
> > deb http:
I have put together a set of experimental Python 1.5.2c1 packages. To use
them with apt, try the following line:
deb http://master.debian.org/~flight/python ./
They are also available via plain http (this time, I included a proper
index.html so that it should be possible to download them with
I have prepared an experimental set of Python 1.5.2b2 packages with
experimental shared library support. Please try and report any problems or
suggestions to me!
http://master.debian.org/~flight/python/
resp. for apt:
deb http://master.debian.org/~flight/python ./
I plan to drop the pytho
on package.
Gregor
--
| Gregor Hoffleit Mathematisches Institut, Uni HD|
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] INF 288, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany |
| (NeXTmail, MIME) (49)6221 54-5771fax 54-8312 |
| "We will make windows invisible" |
Hi,
since a few people asked:
On Sat, Feb 13, 1999 at 11:19:16PM -0500, Christian Hudon wrote:
> are you still working on a zope package for Debian? If yes, when is it
> going to be out? I'd like to play with zope at the office, and so if you're
> too busy I could build a zope package and upload
[The current default Makefile.pre.in from /usr/lib/python1.5/config
has the problem that for it uses a plain mkdir to create the
DESTSHARED directory. In general, this works fine since DESTSHARED's
parent (e.g. /usr/lib/python1.5/site-packages) already exists, but
with Debian, `pwd`/debian/tmp/$DES
Sorry about this inconvenience. I just saw that python-tk from 1.5.1-5
depends on tkstep8.0, while it should depend on tk8.0. I'll correct this
in a new upload in the next two or three days.
In the meantime, you can also force configuration with "dpkg
--force-depends --configure python-tk".
Ok, now that I learned that the freeze is going to happen this Friday,
it's clear that the time is too short to make the transition to my
experimental Python setup.
Tomorrow I will upload a new set of python packages, 1.5.1-5, with all
official patches applied and a few new fixes included; there
On Tue, Oct 13, 1998 at 04:13:40PM +0300, Arto Astala wrote:
> > 2.) Play risk. Adopt a new scheme similar to my proposal, e.g.
> >
> > - Remove python-net, python-misc; new package python-lib. This would
> > break a few packages' dependencies; those had to be rebuilt.
>
> Apart of other change
On Mon, Oct 12, 1998 at 08:34:19PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Gregor Hoffleit writes:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I placed new experimental packages of python and jpython on my private
> > web page, http://www.mathi.uni-heidelberg.de/~flight/debian-private/.
> >
&g
On Thu, Sep 17, 1998 at 04:34:02PM +0200, Lorenzo M. Catucci wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 17 Sep 1998, Gregor Hoffleit [...]
> >
> > I wonder if we are the only ones reading this list. Is it possible to
> > see who is subscribed to the list ?
> >
> `An interested u
Martin Schulze writes:
> Martin Schulze wrote:
> > I'd like to entirely cancel my last mail wrt grail. I saw it and
> > removed it entirely. The licence is just fucked up.
> >
> > [..]
> > this Agreement does not authorize Licensee to distribute copies of
> > the Software to t
Following up on my recent inquiry about the JPython license, here is
an update. Depending on the results of these issues, I will put the
package into main, contrib or non-free.
(1) License issues
Judging from the repsonses, most of the license seems to be acceptable
according to the terms of the
Hi,
I placed new experimental packages of python and jpython on my private
web page, http://www.mathi.uni-heidelberg.de/~flight/debian-private/.
Sorry that I still not managed to put together the proposal for a Debian
Python policy. If you look at the packages, you'll get the idea for a few
mo
Hi,
I'd like to invite all of you to join the debian-python mailing list
at lists.debian.org.
There are a few issues regarding the Python base packages that I'd like to
see resolved before the release of slink.
This is the charter for debian-python:
debian-python@lists.debian.org
90 matches
Mail list logo
