On Sat, 14 Jul 2001, D-Man wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 14, 2001 at 04:05:56PM +1200, Carey Evans wrote:
> | D-Man <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> |
> | > Yes. Maybe each extension should just depend on a single version of
> | > python and need to be rebuilt for each new python release.
> |
> | It makes thi
On Sat, Jul 14, 2001 at 04:05:56PM +1200, Carey Evans wrote:
| D-Man <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|
| > Yes. Maybe each extension should just depend on a single version of
| > python and need to be rebuilt for each new python release.
|
| It makes things considerably simpler, from my point of vie
D-Man <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes. Maybe each extension should just depend on a single version of
> python and need to be rebuilt for each new python release.
It makes things considerably simpler, from my point of view.
Then, of course, we need unique package names for each package.
Somet
D-Man <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Say, ..., is there a way for a python script to find out where the
> python binary executing it is? If so, then the "real" script could be
> run via os.system by the Debian script that uses #! deb_py_ver.
sys.executable, which comes from argv[0] in Py_Main(),
On Sat, Jul 14, 2001 at 01:07:21PM +1200, Carey Evans wrote:
| D-Man <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > Sure, but also consider older packages. For example, we are now
| > moving to 2.0 (or 2.1) for the "default" python. We still want to
| > provide 1.5.2 versions of all the other packages, so the
D-Man <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It might be more convenient, unless a user, for some strange reason,
> wants to only have an older version of python.
In which case they won't have anything else installed that depends on
"python", and they'll just install "python-2.1", for example, and
never s
On Sat, Jul 14, 2001 at 01:30:17AM +0200, Carel Fellinger wrote:
| On Fri, Jul 13, 2001 at 07:05:17PM -0400, D-Man wrote:
| ...
| > Ok, sure, replace the space separator between the versions with a
| > different ASCII separator.
|
| Won't do either, as this would make it impossible to pass default
On Sat, Jul 14, 2001 at 11:27:55AM +1200, Carey Evans wrote:
| D-Man <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|
| > o all core (the interpreter) python packages will be versioned
| > ex
| > python-1.5.2
| > python-2.0
| > python-2.1.1
| >
| > Each of these will contain /usr/b
On Fri, Jul 13, 2001 at 07:05:17PM -0400, D-Man wrote:
...
> Ok, sure, replace the space separator between the versions with a
> different ASCII separator.
Won't do either, as this would make it impossible to pass default
options like:
#!/usr/bin/python -u
I know, this also doesn't work with
D-Man <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> o all core (the interpreter) python packages will be versioned
> ex
> python-1.5.2
> python-2.0
> python-2.1.1
>
> Each of these will contain /usr/bin/pythonX.Y.Z and "provide"
> 'python'.
It might be more convenient to ha
On Fri, Jul 13, 2001 at 06:27:20PM -0400, David M. Cooke wrote:
| At some point, D-Man <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > On Fri, Jul 13, 2001 at 11:30:28PM +0200, Carel Fellinger wrote:
| > | On Fri, Jul 13, 2001 at 03:25:20PM -0400, D-Man wrote:
| > | ...
| > | > o The #! line should look something
On Fri, 13 Jul 2001, D-Man wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2001 at 11:30:28PM +0200, Carel Fellinger wrote:
> | On Fri, Jul 13, 2001 at 03:25:20PM -0400, D-Man wrote:
> | ...
> | > o The #! line should look something like
> | > #!/usr/bin/deb_py_ver 1.5.2 -
> |
> | I can't get things like this t
At some point, D-Man <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2001 at 11:30:28PM +0200, Carel Fellinger wrote:
> | On Fri, Jul 13, 2001 at 03:25:20PM -0400, D-Man wrote:
> | ...
> | > o The #! line should look something like
> | > #!/usr/bin/deb_py_ver 1.5.2 -
> |
> | I can't get th
On Fri, Jul 13, 2001 at 11:30:28PM +0200, Carel Fellinger wrote:
| On Fri, Jul 13, 2001 at 03:25:20PM -0400, D-Man wrote:
| ...
| > o The #! line should look something like
| > #!/usr/bin/deb_py_ver 1.5.2 -
|
| I can't get things like this to work. It seems one parameter at
| most is al
On Fri, Jul 13, 2001 at 03:25:20PM -0400, D-Man wrote:
...
> o The #! line should look something like
> #!/usr/bin/deb_py_ver 1.5.2 -
I can't get things like this to work. It seems one parameter atmost is
allowed there. That's why I proposed this symlink trick the other day.
Then the fi
Last night I had an idea for organizing multiple python versions in
Debian.
o all core (the interpreter) python packages will be versioned
ex
python-1.5.2
python-2.0
python-2.1.1
Each of these will contain /usr/bin/pythonX.Y.Z and "provide"
'python'.
/u
On Thu, Jul 12, 2001 at 04:55:59PM -0600, Bruce Sass wrote:
...
> I'm a little confused...
> A solution to the problem has already been proposed in previous
> discussions on this list -- and I though it had already (at least)
> started to be implemented...
Sorry, I just recently subscribed to this
On Wed, Jul 11, 2001 at 05:30:03PM +0200, Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 04, 2001 at 09:00:06PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> > My semi-well-thought-out solution:
> > - python-* should provide a "Standard" Python for each Debian
> > release. 2.1.1 seems a sensible target for woody. These
Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> - My package is now broken and I have to reupload it, even though all
> I need to change is the #!.
They'll probably be Debian policy changes, new upstream versions of
your program, and/or changes in the Python language that require you
to do a new u
Bruce Sass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> bms:~# ls -l /usr/bin/python*
> -rwxr-xr-x2 root root 3040 Apr 10 02:09 /usr/bin/python
> -rwxr-xr-x2 root root 3040 Apr 10 02:09 /usr/bin/python1.5
> -rwxr-xr-x1 root root 3080 Jun 23 15:52 /usr/bin/python2
>
On Thu, 12 Jul 2001, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> On Jul 12, Bruce Sass wrote:
> > bin/python.
> > and
> > bin/python
> >
> > as hardlinks...
> >
> > ...calling "python-wrapper" to execute the program is definately not
> > portable to other systems.
>
> True... but it would only be done by Pytho
On Thu, 12 Jul 2001, Carel Fellinger wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2001 at 09:03:07AM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> > Bruce Sass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Surely adopting a convention of...
> > >
> > > #!/usr/bin/env python[major.minor]
> > >
> ...
> > I object to this. It make scripts n
On Jul 12, Bruce Sass wrote:
> On 12 Jul 2001, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> > Bruce Sass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Surely adopting a convention of...
> > >
> > > #!/usr/bin/env python[major.minor]
> > >
> > > ...is preferable.
> > >
> > > It does the same thing without additional runtime ov
On 12 Jul 2001, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Bruce Sass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Surely adopting a convention of...
> >
> > #!/usr/bin/env python[major.minor]
> >
> > ...is preferable.
> >
> > It does the same thing without additional runtime overhead and
> > without creating a class of Debi
On Thu, Jul 12, 2001 at 09:03:07AM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Bruce Sass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
> > Surely adopting a convention of...
> >
> > #!/usr/bin/env python[major.minor]
> >
...
> I object to this. It make scripts not portable to other systems as
> it currently does
More random thoughts...
How many versions of Python do we really need to support at one time?
Zope and Mailman both need Python 1.5.2 (and depend on python-base >=
1.5.2-x, BTW), but don't need any extra packages like mxDateTime.
If there are any other packages that don't work with Python 2.1, do
Bruce Sass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Surely adopting a convention of...
>
> #!/usr/bin/env python[major.minor]
>
> ...is preferable.
>
> It does the same thing without additional runtime overhead and
> without creating a class of Debian-specific Python programs.
I object to this.
On Wed, 11 Jul 2001, Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
<...>
> > How to do this:
> > - Executables use #!/usr/bin/python-wrapper (*)
> > - Have a file /var/lib/python/wrapper-config (*) with
> > executable: version1, version2, ...
> > This is written by the postinst.
> > - Have a p
[... just recovering from LT2k++ and other recreational things ;-)]
Thanks, Chris for your suggestions:
On Wed, Jul 04, 2001 at 09:00:06PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> My semi-well-thought-out solution:
>
> - python-* should provide a "Standard" Python for each Debian
> release. 2.1.1 seems
Gregor Hoffleit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> s/not well-behaved/buggy/: Any binary Python extension package that
> doesn't depend on 'python-base >= X.Y, python-base << X.Y+1' is buggy (a
> few weeks ago I asked in debian-python for volunteers that filed bug
> reports against those packages; don'
On Thu, 5 Jul 2001, Bruce Sass wrote:
> The problem with both the FAQ and Debian's Python is that they have
> been assuming nobody will ever have more than one Python on the
> system, and it will always be as recent as the most recent program...
> as long as the language is backwards compatible the
On Thu, 5 Jul 2001, D-Man wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 05, 2001 at 06:43:08PM +0100, Aquarius wrote:
> | In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> | > I just browsed /usr/bin and /usr/sbin, and indeed there are plenty of
> | > scripts that use "#!/usr/bin/env python". If we consider the possibility
> | >
Aquarius wrote:
> Especially since "#!/usr/bin/env python" is recommended in the Python
> FAQ (section 4.63 --
> http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw.py?req=show&file=faq04.063.htp). Is
> it bad to use in general, or just bad to use on Debian systems?
Depends. If your writing a script or program to
On Thu, Jul 05, 2001 at 06:43:08PM +0100, Aquarius wrote:
| In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
| > I just browsed /usr/bin and /usr/sbin, and indeed there are plenty of
| > scripts that use "#!/usr/bin/env python". If we consider the possibility
| > that somebody installs non-compatible Pyth
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> I just browsed /usr/bin and /usr/sbin, and indeed there are plenty of
> scripts that use "#!/usr/bin/env python". If we consider the possibility
> that somebody installs non-compatible Python versions in the path, then
> these are bugs in that packages. T
Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> Pure Python packages not necessarily would need to be rebuilt (if the
> code was cross-version compatible).
It almost always is. Python tries very hard to remain source compatible
across releases. I've been using Python for 9 years and can only think
of one case were my
Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> Binary extension modules depend on the version of Python that they were
> compiled against (a different micro version should be ok, AFAIK).
That's right. Maybe I don't understand the mess we are in now. Can you
explain exactly what it is?
As I understand it, we want to
On Thu, Jul 05, 2001 at 05:33:37PM +0200, Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 05, 2001 at 07:56:57AM -0700, Neil Schemenauer wrote:
> > > That's our current setup (well-behaved packages should have a dependency
> > > on "python-base >= 1.5, python-base << 1.6"). Look at the mess we're now
> > > ru
On Thu, Jul 05, 2001 at 07:56:57AM -0700, Neil Schemenauer wrote:
> Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> > Sorry ? What problems do you have installing Python 2.1 in /usr/local on
> > a Debian system ?
>
> Sometimes /usr/local/bin/python is used instead of /usr/bin/python. For
> example, dput uses "#!/usr/bi
Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> Sorry ? What problems do you have installing Python 2.1 in /usr/local on
> a Debian system ?
Sometimes /usr/local/bin/python is used instead of /usr/bin/python. For
example, dput uses "#!/usr/bin/env python". Also, its postinst script it
does:
python -c 'from compil
On Thu, Jul 05, 2001 at 07:13:54AM -0700, Neil Schemenauer wrote:
> Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> > Until now I had the impression that in general it's not necessary to
> > have more than one Python version on your machine at the same time
> > (except perhaps you're a Python core developer). Feedback fr
Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> Until now I had the impression that in general it's not necessary to
> have more than one Python version on your machine at the same time
> (except perhaps you're a Python core developer). Feedback from
> python-dev though was that it's definitely necessary to allow and
> s
On Wed, 4 Jul 2001, Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> First of all the good news: You have managed to talk me into making the
> big step, and going right to the 2.1.1 CVS branch. Thomas Wouters
> (release czar for Python 2.1.1) assured me that 2.1.1 will be released
> before the freeze, and Guido heavily s
On Wed, Jul 04, 2001 at 09:00:06PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> - python-* should provide a "Standard" Python for each Debian
> release. 2.1.1 seems a sensible target for woody. These packages
> should be invoked by /usr/bin/python and /usr/bin/pythonx.y
If we are going to have multiple ve
On Jul 04, Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> First of all the good news: You have managed to talk me into making the
> big step, and going right to the 2.1.1 CVS branch. Thomas Wouters
> (release czar for Python 2.1.1) assured me that 2.1.1 will be released
> before the freeze, and Guido heavily supported t
Here's my two cents. It might be a bit rambling, given how late it is
here...
[...]
> "Barry A. Warsaw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Yes, definitely as both a Zope and Mailman developer I need
> > multiple Python versions. But I suspect even normal users of the
> > system will need multipl
First of all the good news: You have managed to talk me into making the
big step, and going right to the 2.1.1 CVS branch. Thomas Wouters
(release czar for Python 2.1.1) assured me that 2.1.1 will be released
before the freeze, and Guido heavily supported that.
Now for the bad news: I don't have a
47 matches
Mail list logo
