On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 09:04:54PM +0100, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> ...
> PS Ana: do you hate me already or should I continue? ;-P
Piotr, please, whatever another interpreted language you are
programming in now, stop.
Ana
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org
with
Joss, although I'm more than happy that you fixed bug I reported
(#478178) and you implemented the "pyshared" feature, please wait with
implementation next time until both of you will agree to do something
(to avoid unnecessary work). Let me just cite a DD who told me once to
"hold on your horses,
Le mercredi 18 février 2009 à 13:33 +1100, Ben Finney a écrit :
> I saw no response to Message-ID: <87skwceynw@benfinney.id.au> on
> this forum, but would love to be convinced this will be fixed. This is
> probably the last remaining issue keeping me with ‘python-central’ for
> my packages.
As
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 6:03 AM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> [Matthias Klose, 2009-02-16]
>> Besides the "normal" pending update of the python version for the
>> unstable distribution, there will be more changes around python
>> packaging, including the introduction of python-3.x and addressing
>> s
Piotr Ożarowski writes:
> Sure, pysupport is not perfect. Using /var/ for bytecompiled stuff
> is probably the worst of it's bugs, but maintainer is aware of this
> and will most probably fix it during the move to
> /usr/{share,lib}/py{,3}shared - and I have a reasons to believe that
> he'll use
[Piotr Ożarowski, 2009-02-18]
> that's exactly what I meant, /usr/lib/py{3,}shared will be equivalent of
> /usr/share/py{,3}shared but for Python extensions, sorry if I sounded
> differently
and by that I mean /usr/lib/py{3,}shared/python2.5,
/usr/lib/py{3,}shared/python2.6 and so on (including .p
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mardi 17 février 2009 à 10:09 -0800, Ondrej Certik a écrit :
>> Unfortunately from both of you I only met Matthias in person (in
>> Prague at the Ubuntu Developer Summit), but what I understood is that
>> there are some technical reaso
Le mercredi 18 février 2009 à 02:23 +0100, Piotr Ożarowski a écrit :
> that's exactly what I meant, /usr/lib/py{3,}shared will be equivalent of
> /usr/share/py{,3}shared but for Python extensions, sorry if I sounded
> differently
OK, I misunderstood you then :)
Any comment on the module installat
[Josselin Mouette, 2009-02-18]
> Le mercredi 18 février 2009 à 01:20 +0100, Piotr Ożarowski a écrit :
> > > where is the advantage of having a /usr/lib/pyshared?
> >
> > it's one of the "sacrifices" you'll have to make if you want
> > /usr/share/py{,3}shared to be used by other tool(s). I see no w
Le mercredi 18 février 2009 à 01:20 +0100, Piotr Ożarowski a écrit :
> > where is the advantage of having a /usr/lib/pyshared?
>
> it's one of the "sacrifices" you'll have to make if you want
> /usr/share/py{,3}shared to be used by other tool(s). I see no way to use
> Python's official path in pys
[Matthias Klose, 2009-02-16]
> Piotr Ożarowski schrieb:
> >> - 2.5 is superseded by 2.6; currently there doesn't seem to be
> >>a reason to ship 2.5 and modules for 2.5 with the next stable
> >>release. The upstream 2.5 maintainance branch doesn't see bug
> >>fixes anymore, only securi
OoO Lors de la soirée naissante du mardi 17 février 2009, vers 17:09,
Holger Levsen disait :
>> This is not a technical problem. The technical divergences can be solved
>> if consensus is reached about them or if a decision body (TC or GR)
>> forces them. This is purely a person problem: Matth
Le mardi 17 février 2009 à 10:09 -0800, Ondrej Certik a écrit :
> Unfortunately from both of you I only met Matthias in person (in
> Prague at the Ubuntu Developer Summit), but what I understood is that
> there are some technical reasons why python-central is better.
I’d be happy to hear these re
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 6:44 AM, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mardi 17 février 2009 à 15:03 +0100, Bernd Zeimetz a écrit :
>> > - Can you guys please finally sit down and agree on one solution for
>> > handling python modules? I still think that having two (slightly
>> > different) ways of doi
On Tue, 2009-17-02 at 17:09 +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi Joss,
>
> On Dienstag, 17. Februar 2009, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > You really can’t say I’m not trying to discuss.
>
> I'm not sure if one cannot say this, as you "nicely" show in the following
> words that you definitly totally fai
Hi Joss,
On Dienstag, 17. Februar 2009, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> You really can’t say I’m not trying to discuss.
I'm not sure if one cannot say this, as you "nicely" show in the following
words that you definitly totally fail to discuss :(
> But it takes at least
> two persons to discuss, an
Le mardi 17 février 2009 à 15:03 +0100, Bernd Zeimetz a écrit :
> > - Can you guys please finally sit down and agree on one solution for
> > handling python modules? I still think that having two (slightly
> > different) ways of doing this task is not the way to go. I really do
> > not see te
Michal Čihař wrote:
>> Various
>> ---
>>
>> There are other things which may be worth a look.
>
> - Can you guys please finally sit down and agree on one solution for
> handling python modules? I still think that having two (slightly
> different) ways of doing this task is not the way to g
Le lundi 16 février 2009 à 22:33 +0100, Matthias Klose a écrit :
> > I really like the idea of using the same location for both tools, please
> > note
> > that you'll have to change pycentral to use something like /usr/lib/pyshared
> > (for Python extensions)
>
> where is the advantage of having
Le mardi 17 février 2009 à 22:06 +1100, Felipe Sateler a écrit :
> Josselin Mouette wrote:
>
> > "XS-Python-Version: current" means the following: even if several Python
> > versions are available, the module will only be built for the default
> > version. *This declaration has nothing to do with
Josselin Mouette wrote:
> "XS-Python-Version: current" means the following: even if several Python
> versions are available, the module will only be built for the default
> version. *This declaration has nothing to do with the supported Python
> versions.* If we really needed it, it should go in a
Le mardi 17 février 2009 à 10:50 +1100, Felipe Sateler a écrit :
> > "current" does not mean anything, semantically, especially for public
> > modules/extensions. There is a set of supported versions, and that’s
> > all. For extensions, it is the set of versions the extension has been
> > built aga
Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le lundi 16 février 2009 à 22:33 +0100, Matthias Klose a écrit :
>> "current" is also useful to only provide a public module for just the default
>> version. I'm unsure what you mean with when talking about the above mentioned
>> "issue"
>
> Is it a joke? If you don’t kn
>> Various
>> ---
>>
>> There are other things which may be worth a look.
>
> - Can you guys please finally sit down and agree on one solution for
> handling python modules? I still think that having two (slightly
> different) ways of doing this task is not the way to go. I really do
> not s
Hi
[I agree that this should have have been sent also to debian-python]
Dne Mon, 16 Feb 2009 20:33:48 +0100
Matthias Klose napsal(a):
> - 3.0/3.1: I do not plan to upload 3.0 to unstable or experimental,
>but will prepare 3.1 packages for experimental and upload those
>to unstable with
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Ondrej Certik schrieb:
>> Hi Matthias,
>>
>> thanks for all the work you do. I have one question:
>>
>>> - 3.0/3.1: I do not plan to upload 3.0 to unstable or experimental,
>>> but will prepare 3.1 packages for experimental and upload tho
Ondrej Certik schrieb:
> Hi Matthias,
>
> thanks for all the work you do. I have one question:
>
>> - 3.0/3.1: I do not plan to upload 3.0 to unstable or experimental,
>> but will prepare 3.1 packages for experimental and upload those
>> to unstable with the final release or a late release c
Hi Matthias,
thanks for all the work you do. I have one question:
> - 3.0/3.1: I do not plan to upload 3.0 to unstable or experimental,
> but will prepare 3.1 packages for experimental and upload those
> to unstable with the final release or a late release candidate.
> The 3.1 release is p
Piotr Oz.arowski schrieb:
>> - 2.5 is superseded by 2.6; currently there doesn't seem to be
>>a reason to ship 2.5 and modules for 2.5 with the next stable
>>release. The upstream 2.5 maintainance branch doesn't see bug
>>fixes anymore, only security releases will be made from this
>>
Le lundi 16 février 2009 à 22:33 +0100, Matthias Klose a écrit :
> "current" is also useful to only provide a public module for just the default
> version. I'm unsure what you mean with when talking about the above mentioned
> "issue"
Is it a joke? If you don’t know what this is about, why are you
[debian-pyt...@l.d.o added to To and Reply-To, citing whole mail for those who
don't read -devel, me included ]
First of all: thanks Matthias for your work on Python package(s)
[Matthias Klose, 2009-02-16]
> Besides the "normal" pending update of the python version for the
> unstable distribution
31 matches
Mail list logo
