On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 12:17:33AM +0100, Floris Bruynooghe wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 08:39:42PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > wrt the "current" thingie, I may have a proposal ready soon, I just
> > need to polish the details, and look how "hard" it would be to upgrade
> > the
Hi
On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 08:39:42PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> wrt the "current" thingie, I may have a proposal ready soon, I just
> need to polish the details, and look how "hard" it would be to upgrade
> the dh_py* tools to them. Well, I've a hard week of paid work ahead, so
> I don't e
On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 04:22:07AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 12:47:23PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > While the discussion is still ongoing about the "current" keyword, it
> > seems that everyone agrees with the other changes which are only loosely
> > related. Can
On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 12:47:23PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> While the discussion is still ongoing about the "current" keyword, it
> seems that everyone agrees with the other changes which are only loosely
> related. Can we proceed with these, until we agree on how "current"
> should be repl
[Josselin Mouette, 28.03.2007]
> While the discussion is still ongoing about the "current" keyword, it
> seems that everyone agrees with the other changes which are only loosely
> related. Can we proceed with these, until we agree on how "current"
> should be replaced?
IMHO, yes
--
-=[ Piotr
While the discussion is still ongoing about the "current" keyword, it
seems that everyone agrees with the other changes which are only loosely
related. Can we proceed with these, until we agree on how "current"
should be replaced?
--
.''`.
: :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surren
[Steve Langasek, 24.03.2007]
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 10:39:45AM +0100, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> > I couldn't set "python" in hashbang (as I said before: gaupol will not work
> > with python2.3). Package was build when python2.3 was default so
> > hashbang was set to python2.4. Now when python2.3
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 10:39:45AM +0100, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> > Ugh, it should fail *regardless* of the existence of python2.X-dev. Why
> > would you ever call it "current" if it's building for something that *isn't*
> > the current version of python? A package should only be called "python-
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 06:47:03PM +0100, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> [Pierre Habouzit, 23.03.2007]
> > On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 05:08:22PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > > Le vendredi 23 mars 2007 à 13:40 +0100, Piotr Ożarowski a écrit :
> > > > XB-Python-Type: "multiple" (compile for all installe
[Pierre Habouzit, 23.03.2007]
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 05:08:22PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Le vendredi 23 mars 2007 à 13:40 +0100, Piotr Ożarowski a écrit :
> > > XB-Python-Type: "multiple" (compile for all installed [and supported by
> > > the package] Python versions) or "single" (on
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 05:08:22PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le vendredi 23 mars 2007 à 13:40 +0100, Piotr Ożarowski a écrit :
> > XB-Python-Type: "multiple" (compile for all installed [and supported by
> > the package] Python versions) or "single" (only for one Python version)
> >
> >
Le vendredi 23 mars 2007 à 13:40 +0100, Piotr Ożarowski a écrit :
> XB-Python-Type: "multiple" (compile for all installed [and supported by
> the package] Python versions) or "single" (only for one Python version)
>
> That looks good to me
And how do you ensure that this matches what's actu
[Pierre Habouzit, 23.03.2007]
> current in X?-P-V sucks a lot because X?-P-V explains which python
> version the package supports, whereas current is not about that but
> about the kind of packaging ways it has. This information should never
> have been folded in the same field, I only recently g
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 10:39:45AM +0100, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> [Steve Langasek, 23.03.2007]
> > On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 09:58:18AM +0100, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> > > > - relying on Build-Depends to indicate whether a package builds
> > > > "current" or
> > > > "all" doesn't seem to leave a
[Steve Langasek, 23.03.2007]
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 09:58:18AM +0100, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> > > - relying on Build-Depends to indicate whether a package builds "current"
> > > or
> > > "all" doesn't seem to leave a way to differentiate between packages that
> > > follow the new policy an
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 09:58:18AM +0100, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> > - relying on Build-Depends to indicate whether a package builds "current" or
> > "all" doesn't seem to leave a way to differentiate between packages that
> > follow the new policy and really /are/ binNMUable, from those that d
[Steve Langasek, 22.03.2007]
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 01:36:08PM +0100, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> > yes, but since package is depending only on python-dev (and not
> > python-all-dev),
> > python- should assume "current" by default (and add it to
> > XB-Python-Version
> > so that there will be no
[Pierre Habouzit, 22.03.2007]
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 10:13:40PM +0100, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> > [Josselin Mouette, 22.03.2007]
> > > Le jeudi 22 mars 2007 à 19:56 +0100, Pierre Habouzit a écrit :
> > > > > Just nitpicking: the dh_ tool doesn't need to know that, as it can
> > > > > guess
> >
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 01:36:08PM +0100, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> [Tristan Seligmann, 22.03.2007]
> > * Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-03-21 21:49:00 +0100]:
> > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 09:25:52PM +0100, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> > > > it's useful for Python applications that need spec
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 10:13:40PM +0100, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> [Josselin Mouette, 22.03.2007]
> > Le jeudi 22 mars 2007 à 19:56 +0100, Pierre Habouzit a écrit :
> > > > Just nitpicking: the dh_ tool doesn't need to know that, as it can guess
> > > > it from what was previously built. This is a
[Josselin Mouette, 22.03.2007]
> Le jeudi 22 mars 2007 à 19:56 +0100, Pierre Habouzit a écrit :
> > > Just nitpicking: the dh_ tool doesn't need to know that, as it can guess
> > > it from what was previously built. This is a hint for the release
> > > managers (to know which packages need a binNMU
Le jeudi 22 mars 2007 à 19:56 +0100, Pierre Habouzit a écrit :
> > Just nitpicking: the dh_ tool doesn't need to know that, as it can guess
> > it from what was previously built. This is a hint for the release
> > managers (to know which packages need a binNMU), and could be the base
> > for a scri
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 07:50:35PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 22 mars 2007 à 14:50 +0100, Pierre Habouzit a écrit :
> > exactly, putting current is just yet-another-place where the
> > maintainers declares that he will only prepare the package for "current"
> > python. And you're r
Le jeudi 22 mars 2007 à 14:50 +0100, Pierre Habouzit a écrit :
> exactly, putting current is just yet-another-place where the
> maintainers declares that he will only prepare the package for "current"
> python. And you're right, python-(all-?)-dev is a already here to give a
> hint to the dh_tool
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 01:36:08PM +0100, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> [Tristan Seligmann, 22.03.2007]
> > * Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-03-21 21:49:00 +0100]:
> > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 09:25:52PM +0100, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> > > > it's useful for Python applications that need spec
[Tristan Seligmann, 22.03.2007]
> * Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-03-21 21:49:00 +0100]:
> > On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 09:25:52PM +0100, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> > > it's useful for Python applications that need specific Python version.
> > >
> > > f.e. if current Python version is 2.4 a
* Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-03-21 21:49:00 +0100]:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 09:25:52PM +0100, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> > it's useful for Python applications that need specific Python version.
> >
> > f.e. if current Python version is 2.4 and my app. will work only with
> > python
Twas brillig at 19:13:19 21.03.2007 UTC-07 when Steve Langasek did gyre and
gimble:
SL> You implemented a tool that *ignored* some of the use cases that went into
SL> the initial policy, among them the case for 'current'.
Please, give us a link to the *written* use cases, so we can map them t
Le mercredi 21 mars 2007 à 19:13 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> You implemented a tool that *ignored* some of the use cases that went into
> the initial policy, among them the case for 'current'.
This is wrong. Python-support doesn't rely on anything else than what
the maintainer chooses to bui
Le jeudi 22 mars 2007 à 16:12 +1100, Ben Finney a écrit :
> Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Why would you prevent the user to bytecompile your package for every
> > python version he choose to install ? I see the point to avoid archive
> > bloat in not building every binary exte
Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 12:53:27AM +0100, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> > How will python- know to recompile it just for one version
> > and not for all supported ones?
>
> Why would you prevent the user to bytecompile your package for every
> python vers
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 12:47:17AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mercredi 21 mars 2007 à 15:51 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> > > If we don't, I don't see the purpose of the policy alltogether.
> > Allowing transitions between default versions of python without package
> > renames, bypa
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 01:17:17AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > In the original proposal, 'current' was the flag to tell the packaging tools
> > that pyversions -d *should* be used. There is of course nothing that stops
> > a maintainer from invoking pyversions -d manually;
> Okay I see. A
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 12:53:27AM +0100, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> [Pierre Habouzit, 22.03.2007]
> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 12:23:59AM +0100, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> > > * set XB-Python-Version to "current, >2.5" # here "current" can't be
> > > deprecated,
> > > but this field should be fi
On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 04:50:30PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 12:05:30AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 03:51:20PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 11:16:14PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > > > If we don't, I don'
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 12:36:07AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > * set XB-Python-Version to "current, >2.5" # here "current" can't be
> > deprecated,
> > but this field should be filled automatically (think ${python:Versions})
> > so maintainer doesn't have to know about "current"
>
[Pierre Habouzit, 22.03.2007]
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 12:23:59AM +0100, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> > [Steve Langasek, 21.03.2007]
> > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 10:59:40PM +0100, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> > > > I think depending on python-dev for current only modules/apps and
> > > > python-all-dev f
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 12:05:30AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 03:51:20PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 11:16:14PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > > If we don't, I don't see the purpose of the policy alltogether.
> > Allowing transitions b
Le mercredi 21 mars 2007 à 15:51 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> > If we don't, I don't see the purpose of the policy alltogether.
>
> Allowing transitions between default versions of python without package
> renames, bypassing NEW, allowing binNMUable transitions, and generally
> simplifying
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 12:23:59AM +0100, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> [Steve Langasek, 21.03.2007]
> > On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 10:59:40PM +0100, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> > > I think depending on python-dev for current only modules/apps and
> > > python-all-dev for the rest should be enough (if both sy
[Steve Langasek, 21.03.2007]
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 10:59:40PM +0100, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> > I think depending on python-dev for current only modules/apps and
> > python-all-dev for the rest should be enough (if both systems will
> > recognize it correctly, I mean also: "python-dev(>=2.5)|py
On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 03:51:20PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 11:16:14PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > If we don't, I don't see the purpose of the policy alltogether.
>
> Allowing transitions between default versions of python without package
> renames, bypassing
On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 11:16:14PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 02:44:29PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 08:22:32PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > > I think it's time to update the python policy with the progress that has
> > > been made in
On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 10:59:40PM +0100, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> [Steve Langasek, 21.03.2007]
> > So with current deprecated, what is the solution for a package which wants
> > to build a single binary extension for the current python version in a
> > package named python-foo, with no support for
On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 03:14:27PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 11:03:37PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Le mercredi 21 mars 2007 à 14:51 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 10:47:37PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > > > If this is a publi
On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 02:44:29PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 08:22:32PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>
> > I think it's time to update the python policy with the progress that has
> > been made in how we build python packages. The proposed diff is
> > attached. In su
On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 11:03:37PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mercredi 21 mars 2007 à 14:51 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> > On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 10:47:37PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > > If this is a public extension, this goes completely against the spirit
> > > of the policy
On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 10:38:30PM +0100, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> [Pierre Habouzit, 21.03.2007]
> > On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 09:25:52PM +0100, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> > > it's useful for Python applications that need specific Python version.
> > >
> > > f.e. if current Python version is 2.4 and m
Le mercredi 21 mars 2007 à 14:51 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 10:47:37PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > If this is a public extension, this goes completely against the spirit
> > of the policy and should not be allowed. It just means more packages
> > having to migr
[Steve Langasek, 21.03.2007]
> So with current deprecated, what is the solution for a package which wants
> to build a single binary extension for the current python version in a
> package named python-foo, with no support for other versions of python
> returned by pyversions -s?
I think depending
On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 10:47:37PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mercredi 21 mars 2007 à 14:44 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> > On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 08:22:32PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > > I think it's time to update the python policy with the progress that has
> > > been made
Le mercredi 21 mars 2007 à 14:44 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 08:22:32PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>
> > I think it's time to update the python policy with the progress that has
> > been made in how we build python packages. The proposed diff is
> > attached. In s
On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 08:22:32PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> I think it's time to update the python policy with the progress that has
> been made in how we build python packages. The proposed diff is
> attached. In summary it includes:
> * the deprecation of the "current" keyword;
So
[Pierre Habouzit, 21.03.2007]
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 09:25:52PM +0100, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> > it's useful for Python applications that need specific Python version.
> >
> > f.e. if current Python version is 2.4 and my app. will work only with
> > python2.5 and above, I can Build-depend on p
On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 09:25:52PM +0100, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> [Pierre Habouzit, 21.03.2007]
> > On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 08:28:47PM +0100, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> > > "current" keyword is deprecated? Why? I'm using it a lot and I like
> > > it...
> >
> > What are you using it for exactly ?
[Pierre Habouzit, 21.03.2007]
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 08:28:47PM +0100, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> > "current" keyword is deprecated? Why? I'm using it a lot and I like
> > it...
>
> What are you using it for exactly ? I mean, please give an example,
> with an actual package, that would be okay.
On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 08:28:47PM +0100, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> [Josselin Mouette, 21.03.2007]
> > * the deprecation of the "current" keyword;
>
> "current" keyword is deprecated? Why? I'm using it a lot and I like
> it...
What are you using it for exactly ? I mean, please give an exam
On Wed, Mar 21, 2007, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> I think it's time to update the python policy with the progress that has
> been made in how we build python packages. The proposed diff is
> attached. In summary it includes:
> * the deprecation of the "current" keyword;
> * making Provide
[Josselin Mouette, 21.03.2007]
> * the deprecation of the "current" keyword;
"current" keyword is deprecated? Why? I'm using it a lot and I like
it...
--
-=[ Piotr Ozarowski ]=-
-=[ http://www.ozarowski.pl ]=-
pgpeuiDfwvZtU.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Le mercredi 21 mars 2007 à 20:22 +0100, Josselin Mouette a écrit :
> I think it's time to update the python policy with the progress that has
> been made in how we build python packages. The proposed diff is
> attached. In summary it includes:
> * the deprecation of the "current" keyword;
>
Hi,
I think it's time to update the python policy with the progress that has
been made in how we build python packages. The proposed diff is
attached. In summary it includes:
* the deprecation of the "current" keyword;
* making Provides: meaningful in the case of inter-module
d
61 matches
Mail list logo
