Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
> On Wed, 2006-12-20 at 19:51 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 11:17:03AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > > The python team has apparently decreed that python 2.3 will not be in
> > > etch. This forces every pac
> And there is no upstream version for Python 2.3?
Not even for 2.2.
> Anyway, in this case, I guess the package should be called "jython2.1"
> instead of "jython". And maybe a meta-package providing Jython should be
> uploaded too?
It all seems a bit much, gi
On Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 11:42:18AM +0200, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> * Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-10-15 02:26]:
>
> > A version of python2.3 that sets the default python version to 2.3 has
> > been accepted into testing. It should now be safe to upload python
> > packages that were pr
* Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-10-15 02:26]:
> A version of python2.3 that sets the default python version to 2.3 has
> been accepted into testing. It should now be safe to upload python
> packages that were previously in a mini-freeze.
Good work. Congratulations to all the people invo
python2.3 |2.3.2-2 | testing | source, alpha, arm, hppa, i386, ia64,
m68k, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, sparc
python2.3 |2.3.2-2 | unstable | source, alpha, arm, hppa, i386, ia64,
m68k, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, sparc
A version of python2.3 that sets the default python ve
Josselin Mouette writes:
> Le ven 10/10/2003 =E0 14:02, Ron a =E9crit :
> > On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 08:03:32PM -0400, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
> > > The libwxgtk2.4-python in testing depends on python (2.2).
> >=20
> > Ahh, ok. This is the piece of the vicious cycle I was overlooking.
> >=20
>
Le ven 10/10/2003 à 14:02, Ron a écrit :
> On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 08:03:32PM -0400, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
> > The libwxgtk2.4-python in testing depends on python (2.2).
>
> Ahh, ok. This is the piece of the vicious cycle I was overlooking.
>
> I've just sent some mail to Robin about gett
On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 08:03:32PM -0400, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
> The libwxgtk2.4-python in testing depends on python (2.2).
Ahh, ok. This is the piece of the vicious cycle I was overlooking.
I've just sent some mail to Robin about getting wxPy to rewrite all
its bang paths at build time
testing makes this a problem.
>
> If someone can shed some more light on this for me I'd be grateful.
> (and less likely to mess things up for you guys in the future :)
libwxgtk2.4-python 2.4.1.2 does directly depend on:
Depends: python (>= 2.3), python (<< 2.4)
so it should be frozen until python migrates to testing.
Matthias
up python from entering testing. Python doesn't depend on the wx
| package (or presumably any of the wx deps either), so how does wx being
| too new for testing hold up Python from entering it?
Let's see if I correctly and/or completely understand the situation.
The current python2
Howdy,
Forgive my apparent ignorance here, but I'm a little confused if I read
Matthias' message correctly. I don't understand how uploading a new
libwxgtk2.4-python package (which build-deps on python2.3) might hold
up python from entering testing. Python doesn't depend on the wx
package (or pr
FYI,
[ This mail is sent to all package maintainers, whose packages depend
on python, python2.1, python2.2 or python2.3 ]
You are maintaining the following packages:
To help python2.3 to enter the testing (sarge) release as the default
python version, we need a whole bunch of packages to ent
you can:
> > > $ sudo apt-get install python2.3
> > > The dependency stuff merely notes that upgrading python without also
> > > upgrading wxgtk-python may break stuff.
> > actually, if the dependencies are right, you cannot upgrade to python
> > (2.3) without
pgrading python without also
> > upgrading wxgtk-python may break stuff.
> actually, if the dependencies are right, you cannot upgrade to python
> (2.3) without also upgrading to wxgtk-python (2.3) or de-installing
> wxgtk-python (2.2).
Sure you can. dpkg --force-depends -i
t; > latest-and-greatest python in the meantime. This is the issue at
> > hand.
>
> Sure you can:
>
> $ sudo apt-get install python2.3
>
> The dependency stuff merely notes that upgrading python without also
> upgrading wxgtk-python may break stuff.
actually, if th
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
u 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
| > > (2.3) depending on
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
hout 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
> > (2.3) depending on python2.3.
>
> IMO we want to have a way to ensure a specif
.1, but don't particularly want to install python. If
> python2.1 had "Depends: python (>=2.1)" then you couldn't do this.
There is nothing that hinders you installing zope without python and
python2.3.
> When we had python (2.2), the python2.3 package had no depende
gt; > libncurses5 (>= 5.3.20030510-1), libreadline4 (>= 4.3-1),
> > libssl0.9.7, zlib1g (>= 1:1.1.4), python (>= 2.3)
> > ^^^
It looks like you will have to use the python2.3 package from testing
too
libssl0.9.7, zlib1g (>= 1:1.1.4), python (>= 2.3)
> ^^^
>
> This wasn't an issue until Matthias added that versioned dependency on
> 'python' in response to bug #204748. In so doing, he has pre
t; 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 don't work with
| > > python (2.3)
| >
| > But they do with Python 2.2... why not
uldn't they depend on python2.2 instead
> >
> > No. There is a reason they are not installable... they don't work with
> > python (2.3)
>
> But they do with Python 2.2... why not let them at least be installable with
> that version?
Because the package maintain
on they are not installable... they don't work with
> python (2.3)
But they do with Python 2.2... why not let them at least be installable with
that version?
As an example, in OfflineIMAP, I write:
Depends: python2.2, python2.2-twisted, python2.2-pyopenssl
Suggests: python2.2-tk
(Y
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... i
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 distu
followed. And I keep expecting to see the same set of problems
>affect python.
>
>
>
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*)
On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 12:38:16PM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
| On Mon, 2003-08-11 at 22:03, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
| > > Hrm, this could be achieved quite simply, /methinks. It needs little
| > > changes in dh_python and some prerm/postinst stuff in the python package
| > > (not the pythonX.Y
Hi,
Donovan Baarda wrote:
> Note that there is currently a bug in dpkg-query where ${Depends} output
> is prefixed with some binary garbage... this means your modification
> will not match where $PYTHONXY is the first dependency.
>
Ouch.
> I don't believe you could use python in this case... thi
On Tue, 2003-08-12 at 12:54, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Donovan Baarda wrote:
> > Using this the python package can "notify" all packages that depend on
> > it by calling dpkg-reconfigure on them;
>
> That would work for me too, of course.
>
> >> egrep "^install ok installed:[^:]*:.*$PYT
> Depending on Python 2.3 when a package works fine with 2.1 and 2.2
> as well is not a good solution in my opinion.
Modem users must spend an extra hour downloading just to get a tiny
package too.
Hi,
Donovan Baarda wrote:
> Using this the python package can "notify" all packages that depend on
> it by calling dpkg-reconfigure on them;
That would work for me too, of course.
>> egrep "^install ok installed:[^:]*:.*$PYTHONXY([ ,]|$)" | \
That regexp looks like it should look like this ins
d':'
}
Using this the python package can "notify" all packages that depend on
it by calling dpkg-reconfigure on them;
for p in `get_dependants python`; do
dpkg-reconfigure --priority=critical $p
done
This assumes packages will compile their own *.py's using a suitable
Hi, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Hrm, this could be achieved quite simply, /methinks. It needs little
> changes in dh_python and some prerm/postinst stuff in the python package
> (not the pythonX.Y package) to rebuild all .pyc's and .pyo's in this
> directory upon upgrade.
>
> Matthias, do you think
Le lun 11/08/2003 à 01:08, Donovan Baarda a écrit :
> The recently suggested alternative of putting modules in
> /usr/lib/site-python (or wherever) with only one set of *.pyc's for
> the default python is much simpler. It does rely on "root" only using
> the default python to avoid re-compiling pyc
Le lun 11/08/2003 à 01:04, Donovan Baarda a écrit :
> you end up with multiple packages where the only difference is the
> versioned depends on python not very efficient.
I'm not saying it is efficient, but it is simple and it works.
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :
On Sun, Aug 10, 2003 at 02:58:21PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Donovan Baarda writes:
> > Does anyone want me to contibute some code to try and do this? I think
> > the "python-central" stuff has most of the code to handle this, it just
> > needs a little bit of tweaking.
>
> sure, that would b
On Sun, Aug 10, 2003 at 09:45:29PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le dim 10/08/2003 ? 16:12, Lars Wirzenius a ?crit :
> > Depending on Python 2.3 when a package works fine with 2.1 and 2.2 as
> > well is not a good solution in my opinion. It prevents, for example,
> >
On Sun, Aug 10, 2003 at 05:26:23PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
>
> > (There will be a problem when the default version of Python changes. I
> > don't think we have a way to deal with that.)
>
> Why not simply call compileall.py for each dirctory in the PYTHONPATH
>
Le dim 10/08/2003 à 16:12, Lars Wirzenius a écrit :
> Depending on Python 2.3 when a package works fine with 2.1 and 2.2 as
> well is not a good solution in my opinion. It prevents, for example,
> being able to use the package on woody, even if it is uploaded only into
> stable. (Thi
Hi, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> (There will be a problem when the default version of Python changes. I
> don't think we have a way to deal with that.)
Why not simply call compileall.py for each dirctory in the PYTHONPATH
from "python"s postinst?
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de
On su, 2003-08-10 at 15:56, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> If you can provide a good solution to achieve this, it will surely be
> welcome. In the meantime, please don't do what you describe with
> packages shipping .py files. You should depend on python (>= 2.3),
> python (<&l
I subscribe debian-python. Please don't Cc me when you reply to the
list.
On su, 2003-08-10 at 13:06, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Lars Wirzenius writes:
> > Um, yeah, it does contain a .pyc. I don't think it should: the postinst
> > compiles the eoc.py file. The inclusion of the .pyc file seems like a
he pyc's
> and pyo's in their postrm, they should not need updating.
>
> However, people who have these packages installed before the 2.2 -> 2.3
> transition will have pyc's compiled for 2.2 when the default python is
> 2.3, unless the new python (2.3) package is going to
On Sun, 2003-08-10 at 17:55, Matthias Klose wrote:
> This seems to be a common misunderstanding. Therefore the CC to
> debian-python that I have something as a reference.
[...]
> > As far as I know, it already works with Python 2.3. And 2.2. And 2.1. I
> > like the fact that the
Lars Wirzenius writes:
> Um, yeah, it does contain a .pyc. I don't think it should: the postinst
> compiles the eoc.py file. The inclusion of the .pyc file seems like a
> bug due to unforeseen interaction with the upstream Makefile's install
> target. I'll have to remove the .pyc from the .deb in t
ow, it already works with Python 2.3. And 2.2. And 2.1. I
> > like the fact that the same package works fine both on woody and in
> > unstable. :)
>
> No. The package ships compiled python modules. These are maybe
> compiled with 2.1 or 2.2. If a user other than root uses thes
.
> > If the package doesn't work with 2.3, please explicitely depend on the 2.2
> > packages.
>
> Package: enemies-of-carlotta
> Depends: python (>= 2.1), procmail
>
> As far as I know, it already works with Python 2.3. And 2.2. And 2.1. I
> like the
This one time, at band camp, Tommi Virtanen wrote:
>> Hi. What's the status of the python 2.2->2.3 transition of the
>> following packages:
>> pymad
When I get a round tuit. I plan on building new packages next weekend, I'm
currently engrossed in gnucash as it's tax time.
--
[EM
Argh, I had the wrong domain in just about everything..
Now the To: is correct, please reply to this message instead ;)
On Sat, Aug 09, 2003 at 06:45:20PM +0300, Tommi Virtanen wrote:
> Hi. What's the status of the python 2.2->2.3 transition of the
> following packages:
Hi. What's the status of the python 2.2->2.3 transition of the
following packages:
pyvorbis
python-pmw
python-id3
pymad
My package mc-foo depends on those all, and I really can't upload
a newer version before the libraries have updat
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
Le sam 09/08/2003 à 02:24, Matthias Klose a écrit :
> Please upgrade your packages soon, or ask on debian-python for NMU's or help.
> If the package doesn't work with 2.3, please explicitely depend on the 2.2
> packages.
>
> I'll do NMU's for some "base" packages, if I see missing these packages.
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
If you use debhelper's dh_python, please make sure you use debhelper
(>= 4.1.60), which will be in the archives tonight.
Matthias
still a few niggly things, but if
> Debian can go to Python 2.3 within days of it being released without
> breaking anything else, I'd say thats pretty damn impressive.
>
...
-[ Domenico Andreoli, aka cavok
--[ http://filibusta.crema.unimi.it/~cavok/gpgkey.asc
---[ 3A0F 2F80 F7
e... only support one version of python... and be
stuck at python 2.1 until everything uses it, or lose things like zope
etc.
Personally I was going to post "nice job everyone... the Python Policy
looks like it is working". There are still a few niggly things, but if
Debian can go to P
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
> > v
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
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
Last weekend, python 2.3 was released. For an overview see
http://python.org/2.3/highlights.html
With the next python2.3 upload, python2.3 becomes the default python
version. Some packages become uninstallable until they are converted
to the new version. In this time you should not update
On Sun, 2003-08-03 at 23:16, David M. Cooke wrote:
> What's the word on making the default version of python to be 2.3
> instead of 2.2, now that 2.3 is released?
IMO maintainers should start compiling/packaging their modules for it
before any transition of the 'python' package happens. This seems
What's the word on making the default version of python to be 2.3
instead of 2.2, now that 2.3 is released?
--
|>|\/|<
/--\
|David M. Cooke http://arbutus.physics.mcmaster.ca/dmc/
|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
70 matches
Mail list logo
