Re: Experimental Python 1.5.2c1 packages available

1999-04-14 Thread Lorenzo M. Catucci
On Wed, 14 Apr 1999, Gregor Hoffleit wrote: > > > I do. Please do include info docs. > > I will. > > The docs are quite big (700k resp. 450k for html and info > gzipped). Is there support for splitting them in separate packages ? > Then, is there also a need for postscript resp. pdf packages ?

Re: Experimental Python 1.5.2c1 packages available

1999-04-13 Thread Lorenzo M. Catucci
On Tue, 13 Apr 1999, 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: > [...] > > * Python 1.5.2 release candidate 1. > > * libpython1.5.so reworked. Please report any anomalities! If I don't >

Re: Experimental slink python and jpython packages

1998-10-13 Thread Lorenzo M. Catucci
On Tue, 13 Oct 1998, Gregor Hoffleit wrote: > > 1.) Play safe. Stick with the current scheme for slink. I'll upload a > new revision 1.5.1-5 with minor fixes only (all official patches > applied). > This is how I think we should go... > > 2.) Play risk. Adopt a new scheme similar to my proposa

Re: Experimental slink python and jpython packages

1998-10-01 Thread Lorenzo M. Catucci
I told to stay tuned... And now here I am, still waiting for your upcoming Debian Python Policy... But I see some part of it, at least... On Tue, 15 Sep 1998, Gregor Hoffleit wrote: > Hi, > > - removal of python-net and python-misc > - instead, a new package python-lib > Nice, I think it was ab

Is there anybody out there? [Was Re: Grail (was: ...))]

1998-09-17 Thread Lorenzo M. Catucci
On Thu, 17 Sep 1998, Gregor Hoffleit > > > An interested user told me that CNRI/NIST decided to leave the code > > alone, after having used it as a testbed for network research and > > might lighten the license. [...] > > I wonder if we are the only ones reading this list. Is it possible t