in my package
in order to provide a python2.5-compatible package.
Thanks,
--
Fabio Tranchitella http://www.kobold.it
Free Software Developer and Consultant http://www.tranchitella.it
_
1024D/7F96156
* 2006-12-26 21:53, Piotr Ozarowski wrote:
> > * 2006-12-23 23:12, Christian Joergensen wrote:
> > > It seems as if there is no support for python 2.5 in this package:
>
> $ pyversions --supported
> python2.4
Thanks Piotr,
I'll keep the bug report open for lenny th
2.3, but I'm not even sure and to say the truth I do not understand
why the dependency on python2.4 has been replaced with python (>= 2.4).
Any idea?
Thanks in advance,
--
Fabio Tranchitella http://www.kobold.it
Free Software Developer and Consultant
lready installed and apt does not have to
install the new python package, which would lead to the python2.3 removal.
Urgh, my english is terrible.. Is it more clear now? I do not know if this
would actually work, and all I need now is a god fix for #411657.
Thanks!
--
Fabio Tranchitella
This way, the old python (<= 2.3),
> python2.3 and zope2.7 could stay on the upgraded system.
Sure, and it used to be so, but Matthias Klose (python maintainer) uploaded
a new release of zope-common which depends on python (>= 2.4) two weeks
ago.
This is why I'm asking here.
e new one allows smooth migration, and it
is a must-have for a solid distribution like Debian is.
At this point, I just would like to know what Matthias think about it
before reverting his change.
Cheers,
--
Fabio Tranchitella http://ww
le , line 0, in ?
> NameError: name 'getDefaultSorting' is not defined
Same as before, with a note that this is a known problem: try to remove
ExternalEditor from your products folder, it should fix the portal.
Cheer
o many dependencys for me to feel comfort
> about. Is there some easy way to "strip it" from stuff I know I wont be
> using (e.i. debug and zope packages)?
You have to rebuild the package in etch, because it contains a binary
library which is depending on a newer libc6
rt for Zope 2, Plone and
all the other Zope 2 products. We will file requests of removal for all the
Zope and Plone packages from the archive.
Thanks for reading this!
Fabio Tranchitella
on behalf of the Debian/Ubuntu Zope Team
--
Fabio Tranchitella .''`.
Pr
rt for Zope 2, Plone and
all the other Zope 2 products. We will file requests of removal for all the
Zope and Plone packages from the archive.
Thanks for reading this!
Fabio Tranchitella
on behalf of the Debian/Ubuntu Zope Team
--
Fabio Tranchitella .''`.
Pr
g. included in Debian stable) is the best
option for our users.
--
Fabio Tranchitella .''`.
Proud Debian GNU/Linux developer, admin and user.: :' :
exactly
> a reason for them to choose Debian / Ubuntu in this case.
We already have python2.5 and python2.6; after the release of stable
(either Debian or Ubuntu), we have to provide security support for all the
packages, and supporting three different versions of python is too
Hello,
* 2009-06-24 11:20, Sebastien Douche wrote:
> Is it possible to keep Python 2.4 with a warning like "we don't provide
> support on this version" ?
No, it is not possible.
--
Fabio Tranchitella http://www.kobold.it
Free Software Developer an
Hello Andreas,
* 2009-06-24 13:29, Andreas Tille wrote:
> ... in Debian stable. What about experimental?
This is possible, indeed, and I like your idea of orphaning the packages
bug keeping them around.
Thanks for your suggestion!
--
Fabio Tranchitella h
r anymore, so it is quite pointless for me
to maintain it.
Thanks.
--
Fabio Tranchitella http://www.kobold.it
Free Software Developer and Consultant http://www.tranchitella.it
_
1024D/7F961564, fpr 5465
ut upload it to testing/unstable?
I don't see the point of keeping zope2.10 around just because zope2.12 is
not ready: I really want to avoid releasing a new stable release of Debian
or Ubuntu with zope2.10.
--
Fabio Tranchitella http://www.kobold.it
Free Software Devel
zope2.10 from Debian now, though.
--
Fabio Tranchitella http://www.kobold.it
Free Software Developer and Consultant http://www.tranchitella.it
_
1024D/7F961564, fpr 5465 6E69 E559 6466 BF3D 9F01 2BF
Package: wnpp
Severity: normal
I'm going to orphan SQLObject because I don't use it anymore in my
projects; the package is already maintained within the
debian-python-modules team.
Thanks,
Fabio
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe"
* 2010-04-21 01:17, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> I think Fabio (kob...@d.o) also wanted to / is working on a backport,
> might make sense to co-maintain that with him. CCed him :)
I'm definitely interested in co-maintaining the backport (and using my own
backport in production already). I'll have a look
* 2010-04-27 15:16, Luca Falavigna wrote:
> When dealing with python2.4 removal, we asked Fabio about state of the
> art of Zope 2.14 and Plone 4. He replied he hadn't way to look at them at
> that time, and he would have looked upgrading the whole stack in
> April/May. CCing him, to see if things
* 2010-04-27 18:33, Toni Mueller wrote:
> I forgot to ask what'd be the best way to go forward for Plonistas?
> I really think that there should be some time for Plonistas to upgrade,
> which the current scheme does not allow for.
I personally use the unified installer, and it works fine; I liked
* 2010-06-23 19:34, Toni Mueller wrote:
> Some of you recommended using the Unified Installer, which I have quite
> mixed results with. I recently talked to a number of Zope and Plone
> experts, who uninanimously recommended to stay clear of the UI. So I'm
> back to square one, but I'd still like t
* 2010-06-23 21:17, Toni Mueller wrote:
> Short story: I want to abandon the UI as soon as possible.
Me too, TBH. But.. sorry, there is either plan buildout, or UI (which
produces a buildout-ready environment). Everything else (eg. debian
packages) has been labeled "messy", "unstable", "old" from
* 2010-06-25 19:20, Toni Mueller wrote:
> The only thing I had to change was to set the libdb-dev dependency from
> 4.8 to 4.7, but then, I only compiled on my workstation, which might be
> infected with other backports already.
>
> If you want to make it more official, please step in and tell me
* 2010-06-30 18:20, Johan Euphrosine wrote:
> I made a tentative package for psycopg2 2.2.1, (I just copied 2.0.14-1
> debian directory) and ran it throught pbuilder.
Uploaded, thanks!
Fabio
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Tro
Hello Matthias,
* 2010-09-26 22:52, Matthias Klose wrote:
> At least one of the binary packages built by these source packages ends
> up with a dependency, recommendation or suggestion on python2.5 without
> having an explicit build dependency on python2.5 or python2.5-dev.
These packages provide
welcome.
Best regards.
--
Fabio Tranchitella .''`.
Proud Debian GNU/Linux developer, admin and user.: :' :
`. `'`
http://peopl
* 2010-10-13 10:18, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> 2.7 is not meant for squeeze (unless a surprise from the maintainer) so
> it won't be in testing anytime soon.
Maybe I'm completely wrong, but... isn't lenny-backports-sloppy for these
type of packages? IIRC, python2.7 could go to lenny-backports-sloppy as
* 2010-10-13 10:19, Fabio Tranchitella wrote:
> Maybe I'm completely wrong, but... isn't lenny-backports-sloppy for these
> type of packages? IIRC, python2.7 could go to lenny-backports-sloppy as
> soon as it hits unstable.
Uhm, testing... so you are right, it won't happen
se python2.1 or python2.2
and I think Debian should think also about them.
What about the policy? Is there something which suggests to do this?
What do you thing about my proposal?
Thanks in advance,
Fabio T.
--
Fabio Tranchitella
kobold.it, Turin, Italy -
Il mar, 2004-06-15 alle 17:13, Cory Dodt ha scritto:
> There is an implicit assumption here that python modules will actually work
> for all versions of Python. This is clearly not the case; some will use
> features only available in (some newer version X.y). Furthermore, at least a
> few (distut
t (N).
IMHO even if we can't drop python2.2 because zope (and other packages)
depends on it, we have to try to drop python2.1 and python2.1-* from
sarge. Having a quick look through the report, I think it isn't too
hard to drop them.
Talk to you later, and have a good day.
-
ctive stable.
What can we do?
Is there someone who disagree with Donovan and me and wants to
leave python2.1 in sarge?
Thanks,
--
Fabio Tranchitella
kobold.it, Turin, Italy - Free is better!
---
<http://www.kob
t the easy ones) could get rid of their templates and their
maintainer scripts. I know that Luca De Vitis started working on it,
and I tried to mail him but I haven't received any answer so far.
His last upload to zope package is on 2004, February. Does anyone
know if he is still around?
Fabio
lem was never fully addressed
I'd like to take over his idea. Is there someone which is working on
this or I have to start from the scratch? Is there someone interested
in helping me to design this solution?
--
Fabio Tranchitella http://www.kobold.it
Studio T
ould
> love an update or status on it.
>
> Kind regards,
> - Ramon.
I'm working on this, and I'll adopt the package.
Expect an upload of 0.7-1 in a few days.
--
Fabio Tranchitella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
response. On the other teams like deb-scipy seem to just work.
Just a quick note: I'm adopting python-xml as Zope team and I'll upload
the package with the new maintainer soon (zope packages depends on it).
--
Fabio Tranchitella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
On Fri, 2006-04-07 at 12:33 +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> zopeinterface has an unsatisfied build-dependency: python2.2-dev
This package can be removed, pythonX-zopeinterface are now built
from zope3 source package.
--
Fabio Tranchitella <[EMAIL PRO
are incompatible with zope >= 2.8 and *then* ask for
the removal of zope2.7.
In the end, in a few days I'll file the removal request of zope2.7 and
(I hope) ftp-masters will accept zope2.9 package.
--
Fabio Tranchitella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.'
39 matches
Mail list logo
