Re: Debian Python policy & Upgrade Path (draft/proposal)

Neil Schemenauer writes: > Matthias Klose wrote: > > At any given time, the package `python-base' should represent the > > current stable upstream version of Python. XXX: Should we have an > > exception for the case, when a new upstream version is released during > > a Debian f

Re: Debian Python policy & Upgrade Path (draft/proposal)

Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...] > 2.4. Dependencies > - > > Packaged modules must depend on `python-base (> .)' and > `python-base (<< .)'. (>= .), right? Shouldn't this explain just what . is? I assume it's actually ., i.e. >=1.5 and <<1.6, >=2.1 an

Python 2.1 crypto

I notice that python2.1-base depends on libssl0.9.6. I haven't been following the developments in Debian's crypto policy, but doesn't this mean that python2.1-base should have been uploaded to non-US? -- Carey Evans http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/c.evans/ "Ha ha!

Re: Python 2.1 crypto

> I notice that python2.1-base depends on libssl0.9.6. I haven't been > following the developments in Debian's crypto policy, but doesn't this > mean that python2.1-base should have been uploaded to non-US? python2.1-base 2.1.1-1.1 should not depend on crypt and ssl. I've made a python2.1-ssl pac