On Wed, Dec 09, 2009, Luca Falavigna wrote:
> I entirely read the 1.9.0.0 draft, I've got some thoughts on it.
Thanks for your review, I'm attaching the following new patches:
s/binary/interpreter for /usr/bin/python*
Clarify binary versus source packages
Require the python- prefix fo
Hi Loïc!
Loïc Minier wrote:
> Require the python- prefix for public modules
This would mean we'd need to split e.g. python-gtk2 into five. Do we really want
that? The "should" wording allowed one to not do it in special cases. I'm not
saying we shouldn't change it, but we should make sure we'
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> > Require the python- prefix for public modules
>
> This would mean we'd need to split e.g. python-gtk2 into five. Do we really
> want
> that? The "should" wording allowed one to not do it in special cases. I'm not
> saying we shouldn't ch
On Tue, Dec 08, 2009, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> >+ versions explicitely.
> You could fix that typo if you are at it.
Thanks; I've spell checked the whole document and came up with the
attached patch, "Spell check fixes".
--
Loïc Minier
>From ee2c89e0b24b2deff74ad35d59a8ca4a9f936ecf Mon Sep 17 0
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Rationale: let’s consider a package foo that uses python2.4 directly
> (with a python2.4 shebang), and depends on python2.4-foo, provided by
> python-foo, which in turn depends on python-bar. If python-bar is
> rebuilt with XS-P-V: >= 2.5, it will sto
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> This would mean we'd need to split e.g. python-gtk2 into five. Do we really
> want
> that? The "should" wording allowed one to not do it in special cases. I'm not
> saying we shouldn't change it, but we should make sure we're aware of all the
>
Loïc Minier wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>> This would mean we'd need to split e.g. python-gtk2 into five. Do we really
>> want
>> that? The "should" wording allowed one to not do it in special cases. I'm not
>> saying we shouldn't change it, but we should make sure
* Loïc Minier , 2009-12-11, 12:34:
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html";
- name="The GNU Public Licence">.
+ name="The GNU Public License">.
That should read: The GNU General Public License.
- explicitly use the versioned interpreter name
+ expli
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> That should read: The GNU General Public License.
Thanks
> Huh? "versioned" might not be recorded by dictionaries, but it is a
> common term in Debian-related documentation:
Hmm right that was pushing it over the top
--
Loïc Minier
>From b4521be5d579
Loïc Minier ha scritto:
> Thanks for your review, I'm attaching the following new patches:
> s/binary/interpreter for /usr/bin/python*
> Clarify binary versus source packages
> Require the python- prefix for public modules
>
> let me know if they address your comments
Thanks!
>> I'
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> Looks fine to me, but 3.1 needs to be updated too since it currently says
> that a
> package that needs `foo' must depend on `python-foo', which may not be correct
> anymore with this patch.
Ack
--
Loïc Minier
>From ef9d6552930015aec0a9cb5a
Loïc Minier wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>> Looks fine to me, but 3.1 needs to be updated too since it currently says
>> that a
>> package that needs `foo' must depend on `python-foo', which may not be
>> correct
>> anymore with this patch.
>
> Ack
Looks good, t
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 14:58:47 +0100 Loïc Minier wrote:
>On Thu, Dec 10, 2009, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> Rationale: let s consider a package foo that uses python2.4 directly
>> (with a python2.4 shebang), and depends on python2.4-foo, provided by
>> python-foo, which in turn depends on python-bar.
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 11:04:32AM +0100, Loïc Minier wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 09, 2009, Luca Falavigna wrote:
> > I entirely read the 1.9.0.0 draft, I've got some thoughts on it.
> Thanks for your review, I'm attaching the following new patches:
> s/binary/interpreter for /usr/bin/python*
I thi
2009/12/9 Loïc Minier :
> On Wed, Dec 09, 2009, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
>> Where is this git repository hosted? Or where can I get the current
>> version of the policy as seen on the debian.org website?
>
> Concerning the Python Policy, it's currently not handled in any VCS, so
> I created a priv
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I think this is a policy regression, actually. The fact that
> /usr/bin/python2.x is a binary, and /usr/bin/python is a symlink pointing to
> a binary, is not irrelevant - we certainly don't want someone to get the
> idea that it's ok to replace either
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
> 2009/12/9 Loïc Minier :
> > On Wed, Dec 09, 2009, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
> >> Where is this git repository hosted? Or where can I get the current
> >> version of the policy as seen on the debian.org website?
> >
> > Concerning the Python Policy, it'
I think we are at the point where the proposed update to the Python Policy is
clearly more relevant and better than what is currently published. Once this
is done, we can work on refinements. Loïc Minier (lool) did attempt to send
the proposed final patch set to the list and it has gotten stuc
18 matches
Mail list logo
