On Tue, 2003-10-14 at 04:29, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Colin Watson writes:
> > On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 07:28:23PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > > Colin Watson writes:
> > > > For what it's worth, I think a python-defaults source package or some
> > > > such would help: at the moment there are sev
Colin Watson writes:
> On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 07:28:23PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > Colin Watson writes:
> > > For what it's worth, I think a python-defaults source package or some
> > > such would help: at the moment there are several packages needlessly
> > > stalled on python2.3, even tho
Colin Watson writes:
> > The only reason to put a version on a "pythonX.Y" dependency would be if
> > you know there was a particular version of pythonX.Y that your package
> > doesn't work with.
>
> The versioned dependency is probably generated automatically by
> dpkg-shlibdeps:
>
> $ cat /va
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 07:28:23PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Colin Watson writes:
> > For what it's worth, I think a python-defaults source package or some
> > such would help: at the moment there are several packages needlessly
> > stalled on python2.3, even though their dependencies are simp
On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 10:55:54AM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-10-08 at 03:28, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > It does help for python applications, which depend on an explicit
> > python version. I did not count packages with a 'python2.3 (>= 2.3)'
> > dependency.
>
> I would argue that
On Wed, 2003-10-08 at 03:28, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Colin Watson writes:
> > On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 11:40:50AM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
[...]
> It does help for python applications, which depend on an explicit
> python version. I did not count packages with a 'python2.3 (>= 2.3)'
> dependency
Colin Watson writes:
> On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 11:40:50AM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> > On Sun, 2003-10-05 at 02:55, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > > Donovan Baarda writes:
> > > > The second problem is is when we get python (2.4), a new python2.3
> > > > package will need to be released just to fix
On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 11:40:50AM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> On Sun, 2003-10-05 at 02:55, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > Donovan Baarda writes:
> > > The second problem is is when we get python (2.4), a new python2.3
> > > package will need to be released just to fix the dependencies. The
> > > Pyt
On Sun, 2003-10-05 at 02:55, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Donovan Baarda writes:
> > On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 02:28:52PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > > Hi, Colin Watson wrote:
[...]
> > The second problem is is when we get python (2.4), a new python2.3
> > package will need to be released just to f
Donovan Baarda writes:
> On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 02:28:52PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > Hi, Colin Watson wrote:
> >
> > > Incidentally, I think that python2.3 should definitely depend on python,
> > > even if unversioned. This is what python2.2 in testing does, and it
> > > would avoid the
On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 02:28:52PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi, Colin Watson wrote:
>
> > Incidentally, I think that python2.3 should definitely depend on python,
> > even if unversioned. This is what python2.2 in testing does, and it
> > would avoid the "I installed python2.3 but my progr
On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 04:02:50PM +1000, Peter HAWKINS wrote:
> I'm the maintainer (just returning from an extended unexpected
> vacation).
> The problem is this (from the buildd log):
> Build-Depends: debhelper (>> 3.0.0), debconf, python2.2-dev (>= 2.2.3),
> python2.3-dev, apache2, apache2-d
Hi, Colin Watson wrote:
> Incidentally, I think that python2.3 should definitely depend on python,
> even if unversioned. This is what python2.2 in testing does, and it
> would avoid the "I installed python2.3 but my programs that use
> /usr/bin/python still don't work!" FAQ.
So include a "Recomm
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 12:25:29PM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-09-30 at 06:50, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > Colin Watson writes:
> > > While this would probably help users, it won't make the transition
> > > easier as far as testing is concerned, because python comes from the
> > > pyt
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 10:48:11PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Colin Watson writes:
> > Buggy packages
> > ==
>
> gnue-* is missing here.
No; gnue-common in testing depended on python2.1, not python. The
version in unstable should certainly be fixed, but it's not holding up
testing
Hi...
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 10:53:13PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 10:47:09PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > > Missing builds
> > > ==
>
> > > * libapache2-mod-python: powerpc
>
> > already asked for rebuild ... no reaction.
>
> I could take a look a
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 10:47:09PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > Missing builds
> > ==
> > * libapache2-mod-python: powerpc
> already asked for rebuild ... no reaction.
I could take a look at this in the next day or two, if no one else
bites.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern progr
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 02:02:38PM +1000, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-09-29 22:47]:
> > but one of it's build-dep's is listed as:
> > -gimp1.2 (1.2.3-2.4 to -)
> > * Maintainer: Ben Gertzfield
> > * Valid candidate
> > so probably, it doesn't make
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 10:47:09PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > * gimp-python: #207304
>
> automake problem, which it seems I failed to fix.
>
> but one of it's build-dep's is listed as:
>
> -gimp1.2 (1.2.3-2.4 to -)
>
> * Maintainer: Ben Gertzfield
> * Valid candidate
>
> so p
* Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-09-29 22:47]:
> but one of it's build-dep's is listed as:
> -gimp1.2 (1.2.3-2.4 to -)
> * Maintainer: Ben Gertzfield
> * Valid candidate
> so probably, it doesn't make sense to move it to testing, if gimp1.2
> is removed.
Actually, gimp1.2 still
On Tue, 2003-09-30 at 06:50, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Colin Watson writes:
> > On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 11:29:12PM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> > > what about python2.3 having "Depends: python (>= 2.3)"
> > >
> > > This is IMHO a policy violation. python (2.3) should depend on python2.3,
> > > pyt
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * python-gnome2: s390
Due to #212854 on gnome-vfs2 ... I'll probably NMU gnome-vfs2 soon if
Takuo KITAME doesn't fix it.
Cheers,
Sebastien Bacher
Colin Watson writes:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 11:29:12PM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> > what about python2.3 having "Depends: python (>= 2.3)"
> >
> > This is IMHO a policy violation. python (2.3) should depend on python2.3,
> > python2.3 should not depend on python.
> >
> > It's playing havoc
Colin Watson writes:
> (cc'ed to -release for general information)
>
> Hi folks,
>
> Here's a summary of the problems currently blocking python2.3 from
> testing. It may be slightly incomplete, but I think I've got most of
> them.
fyi, yesterday I updated the list from Joss, see
http://people.de
Colin Watson writes:
> Buggy packages
> ==
gnue-* is missing here.
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 03:21:42PM -, Alastair wrote:
> From: Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Missing builds
> > ==
> >
> > * newt: hppa
>
> Is this an error /out of date? From the archive,
> it appears that hppa is up-to-date on newt for
> both sarge and sid.
Slightly out
- Original Message
From: Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: debian-python@lists.debian.org
Cc: debian-release@lists.debian.org
Subject: Summary of python transition problems
Date: 29/09/03 10:49
Hi,
>
> (cc'ed to -release for general information)
>
> Hi folks,
>
> Here's a sum
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 11:29:12PM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> what about python2.3 having "Depends: python (>= 2.3)"
>
> This is IMHO a policy violation. python (2.3) should depend on python2.3,
> python2.3 should not depend on python.
>
> It's playing havoc with my mixed testing/unstable sys
'gramps' showed in my list of held-back programs today.
It is held back because it depends on python2.3-xmlbase.
When I try to install python2.3-xmlbase, apt-get tells me:
Note, selecting python2.3 instead of python2.3-xmlbase
python2.3 is already the newest version.
--
"Be regular and orderly
* Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-09-29 11:49]:
> Buggy packages
> ==
>
> * garchiver: #210828
I requested its removal a while ago (#212383).
--
Martin Michlmayr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> (cc'ed to -release for general information)
>
> Hi folks,
>
> Here's a summary of the problems currently blocking python2.3 from
> testing. It may be slightly incomplete, but I think I've got most of
> them.
>
>
> Buggy packages
> ==
[...]
what about python2.3 having "Depends: pytho
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 12:16:37PM +0100, Mikhail Sobolev wrote:
> is libmetakit-python missing from this list for a reason?
It depends on python2.2, which isn't a problem as far as testing's
concerned. Packages depending on 'python (>= 2.2), python (<< 2.3)' are
problematic.
--
Colin Watson
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 11:49:03AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
[ a list of packages skipped ]
is libmetakit-python missing from this list for a reason?
--
Misha
pgpJaTCkadaOr.pgp
Description: PGP signature
33 matches
Mail list logo
