On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 01:37:10PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:34:12PM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> > On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 15:49, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 11:44:22PM -0400, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
> > > > The negative effect for the use
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:34:12PM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 15:49, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 11:44:22PM -0400, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
> > > The negative effect for the users is that you can't upgrade python
> > > while wxgtk-python is install
On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 15:49, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 11:44:22PM -0400, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
> > The negative effect for the users is that you can't upgrade python
> > while wxgtk-python is installed so you can't try out the
> > latest-and-greatest python in the meanti
On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 11:44:22PM -0400, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
> The negative effect for the users is that you can't upgrade python
> while wxgtk-python is installed so you can't try out the
> latest-and-greatest python in the meantime. This is the issue at
> hand.
Sure you can:
On Sun, Aug 17, 2003 at 11:22:43AM +0200, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
| On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 08:33:26AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
| > Now, I could do the dependency on python (>= 2.2), python (<<2.3) thing.
| > But what would that gain me or users? I see no benefit there, other than
| > people
I haven't sat down to respond before now, but I've been following the
entire discussion.
On Sat, Aug 16, 2003 at 11:07:26PM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
| On Sat, 2003-08-16 at 00:20, Matthias Klose wrote:
| > Donovan Baarda writes:
| > > But that was kinda the point... you should be able to insta
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 04:27:31PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Josip Rodin wrote:
> > Am I the only one who has a disgusting reminiscence of netscape*.* packages
> > every time python* is mentioned? :P
> Actually I'm more reminded of the perl* packages and the complete mess
> that followed.
The rea
On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 08:33:26AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> Now, I could do the dependency on python (>= 2.2), python (<<2.3) thing.
> But what would that gain me or users? I see no benefit there, other than
> people tracking sid would find OfflineIMAP uninstallable until it gets
> updated to
G'day,
It's late and I don't have much time... but thought I'd quickly respond
to this one;
On Sat, 2003-08-16 at 00:20, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Donovan Baarda writes:
> > But that was kinda the point... you should be able to install a
> > pythonX.Y package without python (X.Y). This way you get
Donovan Baarda writes:
> But that was kinda the point... you should be able to install a
> pythonX.Y package without python (X.Y). This way you get
> /usr/bin/pythonX.Y, but not /usr/bin/python. I don't see any reason why
> python2.3 needs to depend on python at all. You should only need python
> (
On Fri, 2003-08-15 at 07:11, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Derrick 'dman' Hudson writes:
> > So what's the problem? The problem is
> >
> > $ apt-cache show python2.3 | grep Depends | head -1
> > Depends: libbz2-1.0, libc6 (>= 2.3.2-1), libdb4.1,
> > libncurses5 (>= 5.3.20030510-1), libreadl
Derrick 'dman' Hudson writes:
> So what's the problem? The problem is
>
> $ apt-cache show python2.3 | grep Depends | head -1
> Depends: libbz2-1.0, libc6 (>= 2.3.2-1), libdb4.1,
> libncurses5 (>= 5.3.20030510-1), libreadline4 (>= 4.3-1),
> libssl0.9.7, zlib1g (>= 1:1.1.4)
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 03:42:56PM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
| On Wed, 2003-08-13 at 23:33, John Goerzen wrote:
| > On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 02:14:55PM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
| > > > Actually, all that have that are now uninstallable. Some important ones
| > > > have that, such as libwxgtk
On Wed, 2003-08-13 at 23:33, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 02:14:55PM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> > > Actually, all that have that are now uninstallable. Some important ones
> > > have that, such as libwxgtk2.4-python.
> > >
> > > Shouldn't they depend on python2.2 instead
>
On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 02:14:55PM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> > Actually, all that have that are now uninstallable. Some important ones
> > have that, such as libwxgtk2.4-python.
> >
> > Shouldn't they depend on python2.2 instead
>
> No. There is a reason they are not installable... they d
On Wed, 2003-08-13 at 09:39, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 01:32:33PM -0400, Samuel Bronson wrote:
> > Well, I haven't had any python-related collisions from the pythonX.Y
> > scheme... python (>= 2.2), python (< 2.3) I've seen, of course... it
> > would be so much nicer if someone
On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 01:32:33PM -0400, Samuel Bronson wrote:
> Well, I haven't had any python-related collisions from the pythonX.Y
> scheme... python (>= 2.2), python (< 2.3) I've seen, of course... it
> would be so much nicer if someone added debian support to distutils,
> though ;-) (*hint*)
Joey Hess wrote:
>Josip Rodin wrote:
>
>
>>Am I the only one who has a disgusting reminiscence of netscape*.* packages
>>every time python* is mentioned? :P
>>
>>
>
>Actually I'm more reminded of the perl* packages and the complete mess
>that followed. And I keep expecting to see the same se
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 04:27:31PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Josip Rodin wrote:
> > Am I the only one who has a disgusting reminiscence of netscape*.* packages
> > every time python* is mentioned? :P
>
> Actually I'm more reminded of the perl* packages and the complete mess
> that followed. And I
Joey Hess writes:
> Josip Rodin wrote:
> > Am I the only one who has a disgusting reminiscence of netscape*.* packages
> > every time python* is mentioned? :P
>
> Actually I'm more reminded of the perl* packages and the complete mess
> that followed. And I keep expecting to see the same set of pro
[restricting cc to -python]
Joey Hess wrote:
> Josip Rodin wrote:
>>Am I the only one who has a disgusting reminiscence of netscape*.* packages
>>every time python* is mentioned? :P
> Actually I'm more reminded of the perl* packages and the complete mess
> that followed. And I keep expecting to see
Josip Rodin wrote:
> Am I the only one who has a disgusting reminiscence of netscape*.* packages
> every time python* is mentioned? :P
Actually I'm more reminded of the perl* packages and the complete mess
that followed. And I keep expecting to see the same set of problems
affect python.
--
see
i agree, we have a great support for Python.
thanks to those who make it possible.
cavok
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 11:47:48AM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
...
>
> Personally I was going to post "nice job everyone... the Python Policy
> looks like it is working". There are still a few niggly thing
On Thu, 2003-08-07 at 02:17, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 09:33:26AM -0500, Chad Walstrom wrote:
> > > > Am I the only one who has a disgusting reminiscence of netscape*.*
> > > > packages every time python* is mentioned? :P
> >
> > > hmmm.. just curious... why?
> >
> > The short
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 09:33:26AM -0500, Chad Walstrom wrote:
> > > Am I the only one who has a disgusting reminiscence of netscape*.*
> > > packages every time python* is mentioned? :P
>
> > hmmm.. just curious... why?
>
> The short of it: he's joking. Note the smiley. Even though package
> n
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 11:18:53AM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> Am I the only one who has a disgusting reminiscence of netscape*.*
> packages every time python* is mentioned? :P
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 02:59:00PM +0200, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
> hmmm.. just curious... why?
The short of it: he's j
hmmm.. just curious... why?
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 11:18:53AM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 10:31:53PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > Last weekend, python 2.3 was released.
> > With the next python2.3 upload, python2.3 becomes the default python
> > version.
>
> Am I the
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 10:31:53PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Last weekend, python 2.3 was released.
> With the next python2.3 upload, python2.3 becomes the default python
> version.
Am I the only one who has a disgusting reminiscence of netscape*.* packages
every time python* is mentioned? :P
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 10:31:53PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
| With the next python2.3 upload, python2.3 becomes the default python
| version.
Nice! This is the way to work on breaking dedian's reputation of
always being way behind.
-D
--
If Microsoft would build a car...
... Occasionally
29 matches
Mail list logo
