On Sat, 2010-14-08 at 15:14 +0200, Bastian Venthur wrote:
> The minutes are currently polished by the participants of the BoF and
> will be published afterwards.
Why do minutes need to be "polished" ... ?
--
--gh
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subje
On Sat, 2010-30-01 at 21:03 +0530, Umang wrote:
> However, my
> foolib will have 99.9% of my code. foolib _is_ my program, it's not a
Why not just have foo.py then ?
There *are* python programs written this way. I think you can still use
them as libraries if you use the __main__ convention at
On Sat, 2010-30-01 at 15:32 +0100, Pietro Battiston wrote:
> ./appname
> ./appnamelib/__init__.py
appending lib to everything is really ugly* ... is it because
./appname.py
./appname/__init__.py
fails to work ?
[*] And the debian perl group pre-pend 'lib' to all the packaged perl
modules so yo
On Sat, 2010-30-01 at 23:12 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > It is useful to be able to run a package without installing it for
> > development and testing.
>
> Right. AFAIK there's no way to do that with Distutils (yet).
I'm currently working on a perl application and the same is true for
Module::Bu
On Sat, 2010-30-01 at 15:42 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> If the package is designed to be installed by distutils, it seems obtuse
> to expect it to work without using distutils. The point of distutils is
It is useful to be able to run a package without installing it for
development and testing.
> t
On Sat, 2010-30-01 at 08:14 +0530, Umang wrote:
> What is the best directory structure for a python application?
>
> If I have a package called foo that installs a script called foo and
> a
> package called foo, this is what I would do:
>
> foopython script
>
On Sun, 2009-27-12 at 22:13 +0200, anatoly techtonik wrote:
> Is it possible to create symlink on a symlink?
yes
> (I am on windows right now - can't test)
--
--gh
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...
On Sat, 2009-26-12 at 17:13 +0100, W. Martin Borgert wrote:
> Quoting "anatoly techtonik" :
> > Even if most users don't need them, tests greatly increase the value
> > of bugreports and doesn't bloat python packages too much.
>
> True. What do other people think of the issue?
They should only be
On Tue, 2009-01-09 at 19:10 +0300, anatoly techtonik wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Dmitrijs
> Ledkovs wrote:
> > Recently I have discovered some very nice features of hg that make it
> > attractive:
>
> Mercurial Queues are awesome, but there is one major drawback in
> Mercurial compari
Dear itsovermyhead
I read this list and several other software development lists and "flame
wars" are rather a nuisance to me. I have been using debian for about
15 years and I am very happy with it.
Please let me be of assistance.
On Wed, 2009-29-04 at 20:45 +1200, itsovermyhead wrote:
> >> FY
On Mon, 2009-02-03 at 17:37 +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> As far as I know, Git doesn't have a mechanism to create full-fledged
> repositories with only part of the history, referencing other remote
> repositories for missing data. With my Git user hat on, this is clearly
> a technically inferiorit
On Fri, 2009-20-02 at 09:27 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> I think ‘/usr/lib/foo/’ is better than ‘/var/lib/foo/’ for program
> libraries such as *.py and *.pyc, so to that extent it's a significant
> improvement.
Why do you not follow FHS ?
/usr/lib/fooarchitecture dependent
/usr
On Tue, 2009-17-02 at 17:09 +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi Joss,
>
> On Dienstag, 17. Februar 2009, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > You really can’t say I’m not trying to discuss.
>
> I'm not sure if one cannot say this, as you "nicely" show in the following
> words that you definitly totally fai
On Tue, 2009-03-02 at 20:22 +, Floris Bruynooghe wrote:
> > Fortunately, I just spent 20-30 minutes going through this on
> Sunday.
> >
> > http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/securing-debian-howto/ch12.en.html
> >
> > Scroll down to: 12.1.12 Operating system users and groups
>
> You can also
On Tue, 2009-03-02 at 10:00 -0500, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
> > It is a PITA for development but ...
> hm... sorry, but I don't see the actual point...
It's actually quite easy for someone in the 'staff' group to get root
privileges ... I told secur...@debian.org on Sunday exactly how and
exactly
On Tue, 2009-03-02 at 09:06 -0500, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
> in Python's case, there is NO way to have it
> configured in the desired way -- ie not to have /usr/local components
> loaded
> automagically. And that is the problem.
You can do:
#!python
import sys
and edit sys.path
On Tue, 2009-03-02 at 09:06 -0500, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
> Unfortunately I can't find clear description of the 'staff' group
> destiny
> nowhere in Debian documentation
Fortunately, I just spent 20-30 minutes going through this on Sunday.
http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/securing-debian-how
On Tue, 2009-03-02 at 09:19 -0500, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
> Having proper configuration file under /etc sounds much more viable
> and correct solution.
You should do it under /usr/share/APP/ the /etc/APP/ directory is for
your .ini files (see FHS).
I have:
/usr/share/APP/perl/
On Mon, 2009-02-02 at 22:35 -0500, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
> WHY Debian's installation of Python decided to diverge from a common
> behavior on other distributions:
Yaroslav.
I think you will find the answer here:
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/
I have a slightly different problem with perl.
>
On Sat, 2008-27-12 at 23:11 -0500, Andrew Malcolmson wrote:
> > What I'm really missing is at what URL I could discover the "official"
> > state of things. I couldn't find anything at "python-policy" nor the
> > debian wiki, though I may not have read sufficiently carefully.
> >
> I had heard t
On Sat, 2008-27-12 at 13:41 -0800, andmalc wrote:
> On Dec 13, 9:50 am, Guy Hulbert wrote:
[snip]
wow! ... ;-)
> I don't think an official Debian package will be created in
> experimental until 3.01 is out.
What I'm really missing is at what URL I could discover the "o
On Tue, 2008-23-12 at 16:17 -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Everyone on the team has a workflow for SVN. Not true for the others.
> We have a working system and we ought not move off of it until we have
> a approach that is easily accessible and well documented.
Besides. Git will talk to a svn r
I see a query for 2.6 in the October mail archive but didn't find
anything on the main Debian site about 3.0 ... as I write (but after
subscribing :-), I recall that there is also a wiki to check now.
Ok. Nothing on the wiki. Can't see 2.6 there either.
I already glanced at the policy document.
23 matches
Mail list logo
