On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 20:37 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Donovan Baarda writes:
[...]
> > In the mean time, another alternative is to point your apt/sources.list
> > at an Ubuntu archive and see if you can upgrade python from there...
>
> ugh, I would not try that ... you cannot differentiate be
Donovan Baarda writes:
> On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 17:09 -0500, Derrick Hudson wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 10:57:50PM +0100, Pavel Å imerda wrote:
> [...]
> > At this point we really just need to move the default to 2.4. 2.4 has
> > been available for a rather long time now.
> >
> > -D
> >
>
On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 17:09 -0500, Derrick Hudson wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 10:57:50PM +0100, Pavel Šimerda wrote:
[...]
> At this point we really just need to move the default to 2.4. 2.4 has
> been available for a rather long time now.
>
> -D
>
> PS I am aware of several factors (inclu
> Take, for example, sharpmusique. I want to be able to browse the
> iTMS. Since I don't develop with C# or Mono/.NET I don't know
> anything about the different versions of each and I really don't care.
> I just want the application to work. The package depends on a version
> of mono that works
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 01:49:16PM +0100, Pavel Šimerda wrote:
| On 2006-02-10 18:12, Josselin Mouette wrote:
| > Le vendredi 10 février 2006 à 16:46 +0100, Pavel Šimerda a écrit :
| > > > For a module that has few or zero reverse dependencies, there should be
| > > > one single package, named pyth
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 04:46:58PM +0100, Pavel Šimerda wrote:
| On 2006-02-10 09:05, Josselin Mouette wrote:
| > Le jeudi 09 février 2006 à 22:57 +0100, Pavel Šimerda a écrit :
| > > At first look I thought python packages in debian are called
| > > python2.3-packagename and python2.4-packagename.
On 2006-02-10 18:12, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le vendredi 10 février 2006 à 16:46 +0100, Pavel Šimerda a écrit :
> > > For a module that has few or zero reverse dependencies, there should be
> > > one single package, named python-foo, containing the module for the
> > > default python version. Any
Le vendredi 10 février 2006 à 16:46 +0100, Pavel Šimerda a écrit :
> > For a module that has few or zero reverse dependencies, there should be
> > one single package, named python-foo, containing the module for the
> > default python version. Anything else is just cluttering the archive.
>
> You t
> That depends ... if you need some 3rd party package/module that debian
> built only for 2.3 then yes, but if all the package/modules that you
> need have python2.4 builds in debian then you can use 2.4.
this is the case with wxWidgets and kid
> See the Python Policy for the various circumstance
On 2006-02-10 09:05, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 09 février 2006 à 22:57 +0100, Pavel Šimerda a écrit :
> > At first look I thought python packages in debian are called
> > python2.3-packagename and python2.4-packagename. And that there's a
> > metapackage python-packagename that requires th
Le jeudi 09 février 2006 à 22:57 +0100, Pavel Šimerda a écrit :
> At first look I thought python packages in debian are called
> python2.3-packagename and python2.4-packagename. And that there's a
> metapackage python-packagename that requires the 2.3 version installed.
>
> Now I see this is not
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 10:57:50PM +0100, Pavel Šimerda wrote:
| So it means debian's default version of python is 2.3 so everybody will
| use python 2.3 if he wants things working?
That depends ... if you need some 3rd party package/module that debian
built only for 2.3 then yes, but if all
12 matches
Mail list logo
