Re: sphinx-build vs. Python 3

Hi, po 20. 8. 2018 v 12:37 odesílatel Thomas Goirand napsal: > If you do the later, then anyway, you'll have to do the former if you > need backports. This bite me a few times with OpenStack already. So, no > mater what the faith of the sphinx-build command, it's always best to > use python3 -m

Re: sphinx-build vs. Python 3

On 08/21/2018 10:26 AM, Ondrej Novy wrote: > Hi, > > po 20. 8. 2018 v 12:37 odesílatel Thomas Goirand > napsal: > > If you do the later, then anyway, you'll have to do the former if you > need backports. This bite me a few times with OpenStack already. So, no >

Re: sphinx-build vs. Python 3

Hi, út 21. 8. 2018 v 12:37 odesílatel Thomas Goirand napsal: > On top of this, I generally also do PYTHON=python3, just in case the > Sphinx doc needs to invoke the interpreter... > i don't think this is good idea. If Sphinx doc needs to invoke interpreter, it should do it in more smart way. Ov

Re: sphinx-build vs. Python 3

Hi Ondřej! On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 09:50:25AM +0200, Ondrej Novy wrote: > Hi, > > I have question about sphinx-build and our effort to move to Python 3. > > sphinx-build is currently Python 2 or Python 3 according to python-sphinx / > python3-sphinx package installed (with python3 as default if bo

Re: sphinx-build vs. Python 3

On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 04:03:20PM +0300, Dmitry Shachnev wrote: > If you depend on python3-sphinx (>= 1.7.5-4~) then most likely the scripts > will be using Python 3. The opposite will happen only if the user manually > updated the alternative, and this won’t be the case on a sane build > environm

Bug#906891: ITP: python-django-csp -- Content Security Policy for Django

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Michael Fladischer -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 * Package name: python-django-csp Version : 3.4 Upstream Author : James Socol * URL : https://github.com/mozilla/django-csp/ * License : BSD-3-clause

Re: RFS: pcapy/0.11.3-1 [ITA]

Hello Sergio, No problem. However, the "License:" still doesn't reflect the license > of the software. According to LICENSE: > > We provide this software under a slightly modified version of the > Apache Software License. The only changes to the document were the > replacement of "Apache

Re: RFS: pcapy/0.11.3-1 [ITA]

Hi Emmanuel, Sorry, you still have to fix a few things before the package is ready for upload. We're almost there; don't give up! On Tuesday, August 21 2018, eamanu wrote: > No problem. However, the "License:" still doesn't reflect the license >> of the software. According to LICENSE: >> >>