On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I do not mind passing the maintainership, but I do mind keeping it in
> unstable. Debian is not a museum for old python versions. What hinders
> you to install the python1.5 packages from woody in unstable? apt
> tagging is your frie
On Fri, 23 Aug 2002, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Any reason to keep 2.1 ?
Debian is used as a development system for portable apps. Many developers
need to test their software works with Python 2.1.
On Thu, 23 May 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Baarda) wrote:
> if I understand it, foo is not really a 'binary' but an 'executable
> script'... (which means it can be Python version independant).
Yep.
> This situation is identical to the existing idle package. It's worth looking
> at how it ha
On Wed, 22 May 2002, Bastian Kleineidam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, thats a problem. There is no way out for this; you'd have to
> have two binaries.
Yes, I know I'll have to have two binaries.
> Provide library packages: python2.1-foo, python2.2-foo.
> Provide *one* binary package for the
On Wed, 22 May 2002, Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > c) python-foo: /usr/bin/foo binary with #!/usr/bin/python
> > > > >Depends: python2.1-foo | python2.2-foo
^ that's an or sign, right
> > python2.1, python2.2, python2.2-foo and pyt
On Wed, 22 May 2002, Bastian Kleineidam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 12:09:11PM -0000, Moshe Zadka wrote:
> > > a) python2.1-foo: python foo.py module for 2.1
> Depends: python2.1
>
> > > b) python2.2-foo: python foo.py module for 2.2
&g
On Wed, 22 May 2002, Bastian Kleineidam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There is a package called python-central which allows version-independent
> packages.
> http://people.debian.org/~calvin/python-central/
> Precondition: you have a "pure" pyhthon module, no C-compiled Extension.
Sorry, the situa
[please CC me, I'm not on the list]
Hypothetical situation:
Source package: contains foo.py (python module, works with every python
version under the sun) and foo (a script whose first line is
"import foo"). I want to properly support people who want 2.1 and 2.2.
There are several audiences here:
On Sat, 24 Mar 2001, Bruce Sass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
I didn't say the file system isn't a good such place. I just said
we
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 debs.
>
> There's no reason, though, to keep the .py files on machines that only
> deploy software[
On 28 Feb 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jérôme Marant) wrote:
> Would you think great to have 4Suite (http://www.4suite.org) in Debian ?
Yes.
--
"I'll be ex-DPL soon anyway so I'm|LUKE: Is Perl better than Python?
looking for someplace else to grab power."|YODA: No...no... no. Quicker,
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:14:17 +0100, Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So... if you link glibc with files compiled by a NON-GNU compiler, the
> resulting binary *has to be* glibc ? That's, well, fucked, if you pardon my
> french. But it's not my code, so all I can do is sigh ;-P
Thomas,
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-python about the problems
such a scheme caused when
/python1.5 are going to do about it. I'm
prepared to adopt htmlgen and python-imaging to convert them if it's needed.
--
Moshe Zadka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This is a signature anti-virus.
Please stop the spread of signature viruses!
Fingerprint: 4BD1 7705 EEC0 260A 7F21 4817 C7FC A636 46D0 1BD6
Pycmail depends: on python, python-base, while
grc depends on python
Which is correct?
--
Moshe Zadka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This is a signature anti-virus.
Please stop the spread of signature viruses!
Fingerprint: 4BD1 7705 EEC0 260A 7F21 4817 C7FC A636 46D0 1BD6
o is interested in Python.
I have not ITPed yet.
Please contact me!
--
Moshe Zadka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This is a signature anti-virus.
Please stop the spread of signature viruses!
Fingerprint: 4BD1 7705 EEC0 260A 7F21 4817 C7FC A636 46D0 1BD6
On Sun, 14 Jan 2001, Claudemir Todo Bom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I mean, use the non-free archive only to solve license compatibility
It can't. See the KDE/Qt issue.
--
Moshe Zadka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This is a signature anti-virus.
Please stop the spread of signature viruses!
be fixed.
So, as a Perl basher , I think Python will not cause the same
problems that Perl did.
--
Moshe Zadka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This is a signature anti-virus.
Please stop the spread of signature viruses!
ng list, I
> don't need to see it again...
You can setup Mail-Followup-To, or X-No-Cc, or something to let us
know, you know
(Though PMS doesn't support that yet, I do try to compensate by hand...)
--
Moshe Zadka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This is a signature anti-virus.
Please stop the spread of signature viruses!
are actually marshalled code objects
(see the Python marshal module). They're not documented on purpose:
they change.
--
Moshe Zadka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This is a signature anti-virus.
Please stop the spread of signature viruses!
rily: the API version doesn't change as often as the
Python version.
--
Moshe Zadka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This is a signature anti-virus.
Please stop the spread of signature viruses!
cular 2.1 (which
should be out in a few weeks) will probably break it too. Better
install .pyc only in version specific directories!
--
Moshe Zadka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This is a signature anti-virus.
Please stop the spread of signature viruses!
d
debian legal on this.
--
Moshe Zadka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- 95855124
http://advogato.org/person/moshez
Hi there!
I wonder if someone wants to organize a key-signing at IPC9
(http://www.python9.com)? Please answer especially if you can sign keys:
having a key signing fest without someone with a trusted key is a bit
pointless...
--
Moshe Zadka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- 95855124
http://advoga
s part of a particular application should go under /usr/lib/
> somewhere. (That's what I did for 'subterfugue'.)
>
> Does that make sense?
I recommend to everyone to take a look at the Python-Dev archives, where
Guido, Jeremy and I are talking about this very issue.
--
Mo
ution for long-term coexistence, not for just
> a transition from one major version to the next. It's probably
> overkill for the current situation...
Oh, well, maybe you're right.
I wonder why the official Debian python-packages maintainer hasn't
commented...
--
Moshe Zadka &
On 15 Nov 2000, Rob Tillotson wrote:
> Moshe Zadka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > This isn't true. Python 1.5.2-compiled extensions will work just fine
> > with Python 2.0.
>
> Hmm, they have changed the C API version several times in the past
> with minor rel
Here is the current Python-Dev consensus about installing things
in tools. Is there a Python-specific policy against these, or
is that possible?
--
Moshe Zadka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- 95855124
http://advogato.org/person/moshez
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000
On 14 Nov 2000, Rob Tillotson wrote:
> Moshe Zadka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Say module x Depends: on Python. Where do you install it? python1.5 or
> > python2.0? Remember that you must encode this information in the
> > package itself.
>
> Any package
package itself.
--
Moshe Zadka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- 95855124
http://advogato.org/person/moshez
or a source one.
A source one won't help him *at all* since Python won't be able to find
the source files unless they're in a specific place. And I've no love
for the whole -dev situation anyway...
--
Moshe Zadka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- 95855124
http://advogato.org/person/moshez
ike there is any obvious way to "install" IDLE; it looks like it
is intended to be run out of the source directory.
If anyone else owns (or otherwise feels responsible for) a package in
the Tools directory that ought to be included with the RPMs, please
write a setup script for it.
Jeremy
is where we put 3rd party modules.
--
Moshe Zadka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- 95855124
http://advogato.org/person/moshez
nless the installation procedure creates them. THe
reason is that since these are on /usr/lib, when an ordinary user imports
them, no .pyc will be written since the user has no permissions there.
--
Moshe Zadka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- 95855124
http://advogato.org/person/moshez
On Thu, 2 Nov 2000, Bastian Kleineidam wrote:
> >I recently created a debian file for my project (see http://subterfugue.org),
> >and discovered just now why including .pyc and .pyo files directly doesn't
> >work optimally.
> Where is the problem? Python bytecode should be platform
> independent!
A note on building Python 2.0 for Linux.
--
Moshe Zadka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
There is no IGLU cabal.
http://advogato.org/person/moshez
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 22:44:20 -0400
From: Tim Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Huaiyu Zhu <[EMAIL PROTECT
36 matches
Mail list logo
