On Sun, 04 Jun 2006, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > - python2.x-* packages -- are they needed? desirable?
> >Steve and Matthias gave different answers, and if they're present
> >migrations end up just as fragile as they are now.
>
> No, not different answers. They may be needed, if an extensio
On Sun, 04 Jun 2006, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> policy is. So here's *my* attempt at summarizing the BoF, based on your
> first mail and responses, and independent of the tools used:
>
> 1) Public modules and extensions should support all available Python
> versions, using a single binary package.
>
Hi,
I initially sent this e-mail only to [EMAIL PROTECTED], but then I realized
that it's more likely to find a sponsor for a Python module here.
Original Message
Subject: RFS: python-musicbrainz2
Resent-Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 08:15:12 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-From: debian-mentors@lis
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No. An extension has to be separately *compiled* for each python version
> it's to support. A python-foo package containing
> /usr/lib/python2.3/site-packages/foo/foo.so and
> /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/foo/foo.so must not claim to be compatible
Of course, i'd be glad to help concretly. I'm not a Python expert, but i
could help on the CDBS front, and test solutions (like i did with Joss
for python-support recently), and provide some valuable documentation
(even if the CDBS documentation forked, i'm still updating the original
version regu
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 02:23:45PM +0200, Marc Dequènes wrote:
> So, that's my idea, willing to automatize all complicated build rules,
> and remove the upper boundaries in dependencies, which would be rendered
> useless by intelligent binNMUs.
Er, I guess you do understand since you agreed with
On Mon, 2006-06-05 at 14:23 +0200, Marc Dequènes wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > No. An extension has to be separately *compiled* for each python version
> > it's to support. A python-foo package containing
> > /usr/lib/python2.3/site-packages/foo/foo.so and
> > /usr/li
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> - An Arch: any python-foo extension package must depend on
> python (>= $minver), python (<< $maxver+1), where $minver is the earliest
> python ABI that it includes a compiled extension for and $maxver is the
> latest python ABI that it includes a
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> CDBS is not necessary; look at python-gst0.10's packaging. The versions
> it's built for is controlled entirely via a single Make variable, and it
> uses regular debhelper. This could be further refined to find all
> installed versions of Python at build
> > s/available/supported/. we will try to keep the number of supported
> > python versions/implementations minimal.
>
> Is there difference between available and supported versions ? What use
> for an official python package if it is not supported ?
assume we want to add a python2.5 package. It'
Piotr Ozarowski writes:
> I have just finished my first python-support based package[1] and I think I
> have found a bug: after running post install command:
>
> # pycentral pkginstall python-enchant
>
> I'm getting this:
> | /usr/bin/python2.3: can't open file '/usr/sbin/py_compilefiles'
thank
11 matches
Mail list logo
