On Oct 27, Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> I've put a version 0.3.6 of the Python Policy Draft on
> http://people.debian.org/~flight/python/. The version is still a little
> bit rough and sometimes incomplete, but it already gives a good outline
> of the Python packaging system we are installing just now.
Gregor Hoffleit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've put a version 0.3.6 of the Python Policy Draft on
> http://people.debian.org/~flight/python/. The version is still a little
> bit rough and sometimes incomplete, but it already gives a good outline
> of the Python packaging system we are installin
On Sat, Oct 27, 2001 at 01:38:05AM +0200, Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> I've put a version 0.3.6 of the Python Policy Draft on
> http://people.debian.org/~flight/python/. The version is still a little
> bit rough and sometimes incomplete, but it already gives a good outline
> of the Python packaging sys
Jérôme Marant writes:
> Gregor Hoffleit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I've put a version 0.3.6 of the Python Policy Draft on
> > http://people.debian.org/~flight/python/. The version is still a little
> > bit rough and sometimes incomplete, but it already gives a good outline
> > of the Python
Chris Lawrence writes:
> On Oct 27, Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> > I've put a version 0.3.6 of the Python Policy Draft on
> > http://people.debian.org/~flight/python/. The version is still a little
> > bit rough and sometimes incomplete, but it already gives a good outline
> > of the Python packaging s
Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It let's a package depend on:
>
>python (>= 2.1), python (<< 2.2), python-foo
>
> and can expect a working default Python version, which has support for
> python-foo.
You mean
python, python-foo
I presume?
> My proposal would be to build 1
Joel Rosdahl writes:
> Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > It let's a package depend on:
> >
> >python (>= 2.1), python (<< 2.2), python-foo
> >
> > and can expect a working default Python version, which has support for
> > python-foo.
>
> You mean
>
> python, python-foo
>
Chris Lawrence writes:
> - I'm not sure in 2.1.2.2 that /usr/lib/python/site-packages is a good
> name... maybe /usr/share/python/site-packages instead. (After all,
> the things should be arch independent.) I'd be happy to code up the
> symlink thingamajig for 2.1.2.2 if nobody's working on it.
Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > 2.1.1 Support Only The Default Version
> >
> > + does this "Depends: python (>= X.Y), python (<< X.Y+1)" really
> > work since versioned provides do not exist yet? Isn't it
> > python-base rather than python ?
>
> yes. python is a real pac
Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> s/python-base/python/.
I would prefer to keep "python-base" because it reflects that it does
not contain the whole python distribution but rather the basic modules.
> > - I'm not sure in 2.1.2.2 that /usr/lib/python/site-packages is a good
> >
Gregor Hoffleit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If nobody find fundamental show-stoppers that render this unusable,
> we're going to submit it to Debian Policy very soon.
I think we could also add a section about how to use distutils
to install things in the right place.
My 2 eurocents,
C
Jérôme Marant writes:
> Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > 2.1.1 Support Only The Default Version
> > >
> > > + does this "Depends: python (>= X.Y), python (<< X.Y+1)" really
> > > work since versioned provides do not exist yet? Isn't it
> > > python-base rather than pyt
On Sun, Oct 28, 2001 at 03:43:13PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> python-xml and python-newt are the only modules, that some base
> packages depend on (boot-floppies and reportbug).
These are both "standard" not "base" for reference, so there's no freeze
worries for them yet.
Cheers,
aj
--
Ant
I sent the following mail "Python-2.1 becoming Debian's default Python
^version" to each maintainer probably affected by the switch to the new
Python version:
You get this mail, because you are the maintainer of packages probably
affected by the change of the Python version. Followups and replies
>From Appendix B.2:
> The new packages will conflict with every Python dependent
> package, that does depend on `python', `python-base', without
> depending on `python (<< 1.6)' or `python-base (<< 2.1)'.
Since the new packages conflict with python-base itself, they don't
Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It already exists:
>
> deb http://ftp-master.debian.org/~doko/python ./
So, it will exist soon.
>
> > > s/major//. Correct. Assume we release woody with python (2.1), and we
> >
> > But I don't want all my python packages to be uninsta
Hi,
I have now finished Debianizing eGenix mx BASE (based on patch done by
Federico Di Gregorio, see bug#56):
http://www.lemburg.com/files/python/eGenix-mx-Extensions.html
The upstream maintainer of "the mx packages" (mxdatetime, mxstack,
mxtools, ...) now distributes everything in one s
On Sun, 2001-10-28 at 22:34, Joel Rosdahl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have now finished Debianizing eGenix mx BASE (based on patch done by
> Federico Di Gregorio, see bug#56):
>
> http://www.lemburg.com/files/python/eGenix-mx-Extensions.html
>
> The upstream maintainer of "the mx packages" (mxdat
On Sun, Oct 28, 2001 at 05:33:31PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Where do we head? We want to upload these new packages to unstable on
> Tuesday (2001-10-30) or Wednesday (2001-10-31). Because most of the
> python dependent packages in Debian have unversioned dependencies on
> the python version
Carey Evans writes:
> >From Appendix B.2:
>
> > The new packages will conflict with every Python dependent
> > package, that does depend on `python', `python-base', without
> > depending on `python (<< 1.6)' or `python-base (<< 2.1)'.
>
> Since the new packages conflict wi
Federico Di Gregorio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 2001-10-28 at 22:34, Joel Rosdahl wrote:
> > python-egenix-mx-base-dev
>
> note that the location of the header files was wrong in my patch
> (/usr/include/pythonx.y/mx is much better, imho.)
Agreed and changed.
> > 1. Does anyone n
On Sun, 2001-10-28 at 22:55, Joel Rosdahl wrote:
> Federico Di Gregorio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > i plan to drop support for 1.5 from psycopg (at least in debian
> > builds) when we'll have a zope for python 2.1 in the archive.
>
> Okay. Will this happen in woody?
i have seen an url to pr
Jérôme Marant writes:
> Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > But I don't want all my python packages to be uninstalled because
> > > python changed. This is unacceptable.
> >
> > So you simply set the new python packages on hold, until all packages
> > you need are converted. What'
Federico Di Gregorio writes:
> On Sun, 2001-10-28 at 22:34, Joel Rosdahl wrote:
> > Questions:
> >
> > 1. Does anyone need Python 1.5 versions of these packages?
> >
> >Packages I have found that are associated with some of the mx
> >packages are:
> >
> >python-mysqldb (Suggests:
On Sun, Oct 28, 2001 at 02:57:15PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > 2.1.1 Support Only The Default Version
[...]
> > > + a new change to the major version of python, will make all
> > > packages depending on the default version being uninstalle
G'day,
Gregor's already answered most of these, but thought I'd throw in a comment
or two.
On Sun, Oct 28, 2001 at 12:11:04AM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> On Oct 27, Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> > I've put a version 0.3.6 of the Python Policy Draft on
> > http://people.debian.org/~flight/python/.
G'day,
On Sun, Oct 28, 2001 at 10:34:05PM +0100, Joel Rosdahl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have now finished Debianizing eGenix mx BASE (based on patch done by
> Federico Di Gregorio, see bug#56):
>
> http://www.lemburg.com/files/python/eGenix-mx-Extensions.html
>
> The upstream maintainer of "th
27 matches
Mail list logo
