On Thu, Jan 02, 2025 at 09:51:45AM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Context: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1091506#27
>
> Helmut Grohne writes:
>
> > Hi Simon,
> >
> > On Sat, Dec 28, 2024 at 10:33:28AM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> >> Thank you - I agree and hope to convinc
On Thu, Jan 02, 2025 at 10:03:59AM +0100, Dominik George wrote:
> >> Everyone has their own kink. I ignore Python modules that are not in
> >> Debian and others ignore Python modules not on PyPI.
> >>
> >> My reasons for ignoring PyPI:
> >> [long list of arguments]
>
> I somehow don't get the poin
Hi,
>> Everyone has their own kink. I ignore Python modules that are not in
>> Debian and others ignore Python modules not on PyPI.
>>
>> My reasons for ignoring PyPI:
>> [long list of arguments]
I somehow don't get the point here.
Usually, I don't get to choose my build dependencies, so if an a
Context: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1091506#27
Helmut Grohne writes:
> Hi Simon,
>
> On Sat, Dec 28, 2024 at 10:33:28AM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> Thank you - I agree and hope to convince upstream PQconnect to pick
>> build dependencies in a better way. This was a bi
On 2024-10-03 14:22:09 -0400 (-0400), Louis-Philippe Véronneau wrote:
[...]
> In general, having viable alternatives to OpenPGP would open an
> interesting door for the general Debian ecosystem...
Agreed, OpenBSD projects have been signing release artifacts with
their signify tool for a while, whi
On 2024-10-03 11:29, Stefano Rivera wrote:
We should figure out what it would take to support sigstore in Debian
source packages, assuming there is more adoption.
Having that support in uscan and the rest of our tooling would be amazing.
That would let us support things like SSH signatures, li
Hi Salvo (2024.09.30_22:15:34_+)
> > In what wee is this going to affect Debian? Do we actually verify GPG
> > signatures for upstream sources?
>
> It seems we do not!
Fixed.
> > Is there any other reason I am not aware of why sigstore is a bad
> > solution?
>
> sigstore is 3rd party signin
Salvo Tomaselli writes:
> On that thread they say that it is possible to verify signatures offline. But
> the checker seems to need a number of dependencies.
"TL;DR: Starting with the next release, --offline will also mean that
sigstore-python performs no automatic trust root updates."
Maybe I
Salvo Tomaselli writes:
> I just saw this conversation
>
> https://discuss.python.org/t/pre-pep-discussion-stop-providing-gpg-signatures-for-cpython-artifacts/65058
>
> Perhaps someone more expert than me at not making flamewars would like to
> intervene?
In what wee is th
On 11/12/2022 11:50, Louis-Philippe Véronneau wrote:
On 2022-12-10 17 h 09, Colin Watson wrote:
On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 06:27:22PM +, Stefano Rivera wrote:
Calling "setup.py test" has been deprecated since setuptools 28.5.
That's 6 years ago.
This is the list we used during the sprint
it, and another test runner hasn't been selected. I looked at
dropping support for this (https://bugs.debian.org/982298) last year.
I did some test builds and decided that breaking 50 odd packages to stop
calling setup.py test wasn't worth it.
I spent a bit of time this weekend converti
runner hasn't been selected. I looked at
> dropping support for this (https://bugs.debian.org/982298) last year.
> I did some test builds and decided that breaking 50 odd packages to stop
> calling setup.py test wasn't worth it.
I spent a bit of time this weekend converting some
dropping support for this (https://bugs.debian.org/982298) last year.
I did some test builds and decided that breaking 50 odd packages to stop
calling setup.py test wasn't worth it.
I just ran the tests again, and the numbers are 41 new FTBFS, and 54
packages start emitting "Ran 0 test
ian.org/982298) last year.
I did some test builds and decided that breaking 50 odd packages to stop
calling setup.py test wasn't worth it.
I just ran the tests again, and the numbers are 41 new FTBFS, and 54
packages start emitting "Ran 0 tests", so they lost test coverage.
dd-lists at
> SyntaxError: invalid syntax
>
> byte-compiling /builds/science-team/pymca
>
> (missing ':' at the end of the line) but this does not stop the build process.
As far as I understand the sourcecode from glancing at it, that is not intended
(except for pypy3compile due to its
"/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/PyMca5/Object3D/Object3DPlugins/ChimeraStack.py",
line 72
with h5py.File(filename, mode='r') as f
^
SyntaxError: invalid syntax
(missing ':' at the end of the line) but this does not st
on2.7/dist-packages/PyMca5/Object3D/Object3DPlugins/ChimeraStack.py",
line 72
with h5py.File(filename, mode='r') as f
^
SyntaxError: invalid syntax
byte-compiling /builds/science-team/pymca
(missing ':' at the end of the li
Grow your computer with us.
http://ZAIXxhlqyKJgwqxdkh9gkxwxovcwyd.solicsol8.com/?xlbhfnzbh
Eleanor
in Irvine, California (USA). "
>
>
> This message is intended for civil engineers and water resource
> professionals. If it has reached debian-python@lists.debian.org in
> error, reply to this message with a subject line of "stop".
>
> LSID: 12403-2074334
Martin Schulze wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have requested to remove Grail from slink since it doesn't seem
> to work for everybody and the new version is still non-free.
Since nobody has stepped in to maintain grail I have not requested
its entire removal.
Regards,
Joey
--
Those who don't unde
Grail from potato as well
at the end of this week if no other solution has been found.
So if you want to stop me from removing Grail, one of you needs
to take over the package real soon now.
For the record, version 0.5 has come out - but unfortunately with
the same copyright like our curr
21 matches
Mail list logo
