Hi list
I wanted to fix my terrible track record lately, fix bugs and update my
packages
but I ran into problems with sbuild on my package eric.
dpkg-buildpackage -B fails with the following error message:
dpkg-genbuildinfo --build=any
dpkg-genbuildinfo: error: binary build with no binary art
On 04/08/17 10:39, Gudjon I. Gudjonsson wrote:
Hi list
I wanted to fix my terrible track record lately, fix bugs and update my packages
but I ran into problems with sbuild on my package eric.
dpkg-buildpackage -B fails with the following error message:
dpkg-genbuildinfo --build=any
dpkg-genb
On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 11:39:50AM +0200, Gudjon I. Gudjonsson wrote:
> Hi list
>
> I wanted to fix my terrible track record lately, fix bugs and update my
> packages
> but I ran into problems with sbuild on my package eric.
>
> dpkg-buildpackage -B fails with the following error message:
>
>
On 03.08.2017 21:08, ba...@debian.org wrote:
> On Aug 3, 2017, at 17:57, Matthias Klose wrote:
>>
>> While at DebCamp, Stefano Rivera and I sat down to analyze what needs to be
>> done
>> to deprecate Python2 usage within the distribution. It might not be
>> possible to
>> drop Python2 for the
On August 4, 2017 6:49:23 AM EDT, Matthias Klose wrote:
>On 03.08.2017 21:08, ba...@debian.org wrote:
>> On Aug 3, 2017, at 17:57, Matthias Klose wrote:
>>>
>>> While at DebCamp, Stefano Rivera and I sat down to analyze what
>needs to be done
>>> to deprecate Python2 usage within the distributi
Thanks Andrey and Ghislain
> dpkg-genbuildinfo --build=any
> > dpkg-genbuildinfo: error: binary build with no binary artifacts found;
> > .buildinfo is meaningless
> Why are you trying to build arch:any subpackages of a package that doesn't
> have arch:any subpackages?
>
> The packages are Archi
On Aug 3, 2017, at 23:23, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
> Read it. I remain completely convinced that /usr/bin/python pointing at a
> python3 version is utterly wrong and a disservice to our users. Even after
> we remove python2.7, people will be locally compiling it and using it for a
> decade.
ba...@debian.org writes:
> On Aug 3, 2017, at 23:23, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> You’re right that folks will still need Python 2 after 2020, and that
> their best option may be to build it themselves, but I don’t think
> they’ll be building and installing some old Debian package. Instead
> they may
Ole Streicher wrote:
> It is very usual to use "#!/usr/bin/env python" as shebang, exactly for
> the case that python is not installed in /usr/bin.
Sure, but then all bets are off. The script so shebanged can't assume
anything about $PATH so it gets whatever it gets. Using /usr/bin/env in
syste
On Friday, August 04, 2017 10:13:00 AM ba...@debian.org wrote:
> On Aug 3, 2017, at 23:23, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > Read it. I remain completely convinced that /usr/bin/python pointing at a
> > python3 version is utterly wrong and a disservice to our users. Even
> > after we remove python2.7,
Hi team,
pysolar upstream version 0.7 dropped support for Python 2, so I
did not upload it for stretch. I'm considering upload for buster
now. What do you think?
Cheers
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On August 4, 2017 8:00:27 PM EDT, "W. Martin Borgert"
wrote:
>Hi team,
>
>pysolar upstream version 0.7 dropped support for Python 2, so I
>did not upload it for stretch. I'm considering upload for buster
>now. What do you think?
>
>Cheers
If there are no rdepends, I think it's fine to go ahead
Scott Kitterman wrote:
> If the primary concern is what happens when a user types "python", then can
> we
> address that in command-not-found and leave /usr/bin/python out of it?
I'm definitely willing to for now. It's clearly not time to remove the
link or point it elsewhere anyway. I think
On August 4, 2017 9:37:18 PM EDT, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
>> If the primary concern is what happens when a user types "python",
>then can we
>> address that in command-not-found and leave /usr/bin/python out of
>it?
>
>I'm definitely willing to for now. It's clearly not t
14 matches
Mail list logo
