Le mardi 14 juin 2005 à 11:42 +0200, Matthias Klose a écrit :
> > If people on this list agree, I'd like to submit a mass bug filing to
> > -devel.
>
> No, please don't. We'll take care of them, when we change the python
> default version.
You mean changing these packages' structure at the time o
Josselin Mouette writes:
> I've been arguing about this issue on a case by case basis, but having a
> look at the archive makes me think we need more radical action. For a
> great bunch of python packages, there is one source providing
> python2.2-foo, python2.3-foo and even python2.4-foo. Even for
Le lundi 13 juin 2005 à 22:24 +0200, Josselin Mouette a écrit :
[...]
> 3. In most cases, they are useless. The python policy allows such
> packages for cases where a specific python version is required
> by a reverse dependencies. However, it should have been the
> exc
Hi Josselin.
Josselin Mouette wrote:
> 3. In most cases, they are useless. The python policy allows such
> packages for cases where a specific python version is required
> by a reverse dependencies. However, it should have been the
> exception and not the rule.
That's
I've been arguing about this issue on a case by case basis, but having a
look at the archive makes me think we need more radical action. For a
great bunch of python packages, there is one source providing
python2.2-foo, python2.3-foo and even python2.4-foo. Even for packages
with a very few (or eve
5 matches
Mail list logo
