On 02.07.2009 13:05, Jonas Meurer wrote:
On 23/06/2009 Fabio Tranchitella wrote:
Were you aware that we've renumbered the releases and inserted a less
ambitious Plone 4, which should be in beta by the end of the year? It
will run on (and require) Zope 2.12. Plone is finally joining the modern
P
hey,
On 20/09/2009 Matthias Klose wrote:
> The zope2.12 release candidate was released last week. I updated the
> packaging in the zope team repository. An upload still requires some
> work, because some modules still need to be packaged. These are:
>
> Acquisition DateTime ExtensionClass
> P
On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 13:08 +0200, Andrea Gasparini wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm searching for some pointers of discussions about python shebang.
> My main consideration is that if I want to install another python
> installation or another interpreter (say for example jython,
> ironpython, or
> unladenswal
[Wolodja Wentland, 2009-09-20]
> Statistics
> ==
>
> I can not generate an overview over all python applications, but the
> following numbers give an overview on the schemes employed on *my*
> system:
>
> Programs in /usr/bin
>
>
> #!/usr/bin/env python 43 pro
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 18:42 +0200, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> IMHO /usr/bin/python should be a rule and "/usr/bin/env python" - (very
> rare) exception (ipython or paster might qualify here)
Could you elaborate on the reasons for that? I am really interested and
it is my impression that enforcing
[Wolodja Wentland, 2009-09-20]
> On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 18:42 +0200, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> > IMHO /usr/bin/python should be a rule and "/usr/bin/env python" - (very
> > rare) exception (ipython or paster might qualify here)
>
> Could you elaborate on the reasons for that? I am really intereste
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 19:05 +0200, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> [Wolodja Wentland, 2009-09-20]
> > On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 18:42 +0200, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> > > IMHO /usr/bin/python should be a rule and "/usr/bin/env python" - (very
> > > rare) exception (ipython or paster might qualify here)
> >
[Wolodja Wentland, 2009-09-20]
> I can see your need as a python application maintainer to be *sure* that
> the python version distributed with debian is used to run that program.
> But the '/usr/bin/env python' scheme will result in exactly that
> behaviour if the administrator/user has not intent
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 09:18:16PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> * 505 of these packages do not use distutils and should not be
> affected, still shipping files to site-packages/. However,
> according to Scott Kimmermann (who handled parts of this
> transition in Ub
[Steve Langasek, 2009-09-20]
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 09:18:16PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > * 505 of these packages do not use distutils and should not be
> > affected, still shipping files to site-packages/. However,
> > according to Scott Kimmermann (who handled par
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 20:52 +0200, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> If user/administrator is not following FHS and touching files outside
> /usr/local, it's his problem. /usr/local and /etc is where administrator
> can do his changes/improvements.
I completely agree! Did I give you reason to believe tha
Wolodja Wentland wrote:
> I can see your need as a python application maintainer to be *sure* that
> the python version distributed with debian is used to run that program.
Exactly.
> But the '/usr/bin/env python' scheme will result in exactly that
> behaviour if the administrator/user has not i
On 20.09.2009 16:45, Jonas Meurer wrote:
if i got it right then packaging the dependencies as seperate packages
isn't an option for zope2.12, we'll have to include them within the
zope2.10 source tarball. the reason for that is, that zope2.12 requires
particular versions of the dependencies, and
Kumar Appaiah wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 12:00:09PM -0400, anatoly techtonik wrote:
>> Now about the proposal (from newcomer's point of view):
>> dh_python is a shell script -- I have a strong belief that Python
>> package automation scripts should be written in Python, there is no
>> need to
[Wolodja Wentland, 2009-09-20]
> On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 20:52 +0200, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
>>[Wolodja Wentland, 2009-09-20]
>>> To give a somewhat extreme example. A user could decide to install a new
>>> Python version within /usr/local - which i think is commonly done with
>>> Python 2.6 these
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 22:18 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> Wolodja Wentland wrote:
[ placed on top because this is the main point ]
> > If however the *env python scheme is enforced in the policy the problems
> > I outlined in my original post are solved without additional problems
> > (?). If t
FTR: Joss and few other maintainers (whose opinion I care about) didn't
like my proposal (mainly due to binNMUs for arch:all packages) so I'm not
working on this new tool. I planed to start working on it once we'll
agree how it should look like. There's no consensus so I'm focusing on
preparing all
Hi,
for some reasons I need lenny backports of python-django,
python-webpy and trac. Some of the packages I don't need for
"production use", but for automatic testing (using bitten) only.
I could work with squeeze chroots, but probably I will go for
the backports. Now my question: Are more people
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 23:49 +0200, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> [Wolodja Wentland, 2009-09-20]
> > On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 20:52 +0200, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> >>[Wolodja Wentland, 2009-09-20]
> >>> To give a somewhat extreme example. A user could decide to install a new
> >>> Python version within
19 matches
Mail list logo
