Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you CC debian-python, I would expect that you can at least follow
> the status updates on this list. CC'ing debian-python and not reading
> it yourself sounds strange. See my update on this list.
I looked on debian-python, and I couldn't see anythin
"Sanghyeon Seo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>From what I can tell, nothing have changed since this summary by
> Raphael Hertzog two weeks ago:
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2006/05/msg00034.html
>
> "The only issue is Matthias Klose who absolutely wants to push big
> packaging changes
What's the status of upgrading the python package to point at
python2.4? I have asked several times, and my questions have been
entirely ignored.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sorry, but there's a whole new generation of Debian developers here that
> simply won't develop anything in perl, just because perl looks too
> complex and cryptic to us. Now, with bash, perl and python, we can deal
> with the scripting needs for at l
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We can burn those bridges when we come to them. Right now there's only
> one such distribution, with one such language, which has already done
> all the work to strip it down to a small size.
Scalability problems do not happen because someone failed to
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 01:04:25PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> >> Granted if it is a real issue, then why not use perl? Yes, I hate
>> >> p
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Granted if it is a real issue, then why not use perl? Yes, I hate
>> perl too, but really, the argument "hey, people like Python too"
>> implies that we should have a scheme interpreter, a perl, a python,
>> emacs lisp, and well, everything anyone mi
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There's nothing that prevents us saying "we aren't going to support
> every high-level language" and stick to more than one (we already stick
> to two -- sh and Perl). It just means "I'd like to write scripts in X"
> alone isn't a good enough reason.
Ye
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:40:55AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> I asked this question earlier, and no one answered. Are there .config
>> scripts being written in python today in Ubuntu? (Hmm, where are the python
>> bindings for debconf, and what e
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> One example is .config maintainer scripts, some of which are quite complex
> and worth writing in a higher-level language than shell.
This is surely true; Steve Langasek asked if this was a real issue in
Ubuntu or merely a potential issue.
Granted if
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 08:42:57PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Programs that want to use python can assume that python-minimal is
>> there (since it's Essential), and since python-minimal is never
>> install
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 06:38:55PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 03:18:48PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 05:58:20PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
>> > > That said, I don't really understand why it's Ok
12 matches
Mail list logo
