Returning to the original topic: I've now svn-injected python3-sympy [1],
and successfully built it in a PPA [2].
[1] http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/python-modules/packages/python3-sympy/
[2] https://launchpad.net/~takluyver/+archive/python3
Thanks,
Thomas
On 8 November 2012 13:32, Jakub Wilk
I clumsily forgot to post a reference to the package repository [1] in
my previous message. My apologies.
Tomás
[1] http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=debian-med/python-csb.git;a=summary
On 12/11/12 15:34, Tomás Di Domenico wrote:
> Greetings, all.
>
> After the very helpful replies I received
Greetings, all.
After the very helpful replies I received to my first message about
packaging the CSB library, I'm now kindly requesting a second round of
comments on the state of the package.
With the goal of having a clean repo to start with, but also willingly
repeating some steps to better un
On Nov 10, 2012, at 10:55 PM, Jakub Wilk wrote:
>(I don't intend to sponsor this, sorry.)
No problem, thanks for the review.
>* Barry Warsaw , 2012-11-09, 20:27:
>>http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/python-apps/packages/tox/trunk/
>
>I see some warnings in the build log:
>
>| loading intersphinx i
[Barry Warsaw, 2012-11-12]
> >p: python-tox: SOURCES.txt-in-binary-package
>
> Fixed, but we really need better rationale for this in the wiki. ;)
If keeping this file in .deb package doesn't have any advantages,
it can simply be removed in dh_python{2,3}. It's not even used by
egg-ralated tools,
On Nov 12, 2012, at 08:29 PM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
>[Barry Warsaw, 2012-11-12]
>> >p: python-tox: SOURCES.txt-in-binary-package
>>
>> Fixed, but we really need better rationale for this in the wiki. ;)
>
>If keeping this file in .deb package doesn't have any advantages,
>it can simply be remove
I am upgrading Ubuntu 13.04's python-virtualenv package to 1.8.2. This could
provide a basis for upgrading the Debian version in Wheezy+1.
I'd like to modify the add_distribute.patch. What this currently does is set
virtualenv to use distribute by default. This is fine, and I want to keep
this
* Barry Warsaw , 2012-11-12, 13:32:
The LICENSE file reads:
| The execnet package is released under the provisions of the Gnu Public
| License (GPL), version 2 or later.
Shouldn't it be s/execnet/tox/ and s/Gnu/GNU General/?
I've reported these upstream:
https://bitbucket.org/hpk42/tox/issue/5
8 matches
Mail list logo
