Fw: reaI TR/\NNy HAR|)C0RE, Debian-python... aCmucLza G

    Go Wvd hYabg Hey Debian-python iOkVt

Re [1]: SE}{ CRlMES IN |RAQ tjEZXPObi

Hey Debian-python VwfQQhyyH . tlPrPOp Debian-python

Policy: please encourage python-foo -> python.-foo

There *might* be a reason for only supporting the default python, but I can't find any. All I know is it makes default-Python upgrades easier... on us lowly users. So I think the Python policy should (strongly?) favor this scheme, explicitly saying something like "Package maintainers are encourag

Re: python 2.2 -> python 2.3 transition

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 it gets > updated to

Re: python 2.2 -> python 2.3 transition

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