[Josselin Mouette, 2010-06-24]
> Le mercredi 23 juin 2010 à 21:17 -0400, Scott Kitterman a écrit :
> > >5. End this madness and use the version in build-dependencies instead of
> > >asking maintainers to specify it twice - which they usually do wrong.
> > >
> > With this approach then with the curr
[Piotr Ożarowski, 2010-06-24]
> [Josselin Mouette, 2010-06-24]
> example for default=3.1 minimum=3.2 maximum=3.5:
> python-all | python-all (>= 3.2), python-all (<< 3.5), python-all (>=
> 3.1.2-2)
> or even
> python-all (>= 3.1.2-2) | python-all (>= 3.2), python-all (<< 3.5)
err, python3-all of
Hi,
I'm requesting to join Debian-Python to work on NLTK.
My alioth account is pabloduboue-guest and I usually hang out on
#debian-nyc as DrDub.
Best regards,
Pablo
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...
Hi Pablo,
thanks for your interest in joining our team!
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 10:06, Pablo Duboue wrote:
> My alioth account is pabloduboue-guest and I usually hang out on
> #debian-nyc as DrDub.
Just one suggestion: since you already use IRC, you might also want to
join #debian-python on OFTC
* Piotr Ożarowski , 2010-06-24, 09:27:
5. End this madness and use the version in build-dependencies
instead of asking maintainers to specify it twice - which they
usually do wrong.
With this approach then with the current python-defaults in Sid, how
would one specify works with 2.5 and 2.6, bu
[Jakub Wilk, 2010-06-24]
> * Piotr Ożarowski , 2010-06-24, 09:27:
>> it gets a little bit messy when minimum required Python version is
>> greater than the default one, but it should work, yes (IIRC last year
>> someone gave me example where it wouldn't work, but I don't remember it
>> now, hopeful
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
>> * A module that works perfectly with every Python >= 2.5, but its
>> documentation generation system required Python 2.6. Build-dep on python
>> (>= 2.6) is needed, which doesn't mean that modules shouldn't be
>> byte-compiled for 2.5.
>
"Josselin Mouette" wrote:
>Le mercredi 23 juin 2010 à 21:17 -0400, Scott Kitterman a écrit :
>> >5. End this madness and use the version in build-dependencies instead of
>> >asking maintainers to specify it twice - which they usually do wrong.
>> >
>> With this approach then with the current py
Il giorno Wed, 23 Jun 2010 13:15:46 -0400
Scott Kitterman ha scritto:
> I have consulted with Luca Falavigna (DktrKranz) and Jakub Wilk (jwilk), who
> did most of the analysis for the last two Python transitions (Adding 2.6 to
> supported versions and the current transition to 2.6 as default) a
For those of you not closely following python-dev, I've made a proposal for
versioned .so file naming for Python 3.2. It would allow us to place
extension module .so files for different Python versions (or really, Python
builds, e.g. 3.2/3.3, debug, UCS2/4, etc) in the same directory without namin
* Barry Warsaw , 2010-06-24, 17:31:
For those of you not closely following python-dev, I've made a proposal
for versioned .so file naming for Python 3.2. It would allow us to
place extension module .so files for different Python versions (or
really, Python builds, e.g. 3.2/3.3, debug, UCS2/4,
On Jun 24, 2010, at 11:58 PM, Jakub Wilk wrote:
>What's the point in making distutils produce versioned .so? Such a change is
>going to break lots of packages for exactly zero benefit:
Why so?
>helper tools will need to do unversioned->versioned renames anyway, in order
>to handle non-distutils
12 matches
Mail list logo
