On Fri, Aug 23, 2002 at 11:33:10PM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> BTW, what is happening with python-central... is it becoming standard?
> If so, the pythonX.X packages will need to use it.
what is python-central?
--
gram
On Mon, Aug 26, 2002 at 10:43:12AM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> In the end, I suspect it would be just as easy or easier to
> re-structure mailman to put it's modules in
> /usr/lib/python/site-packages.
then normal python programs would be able to import the mailman module.
wouldnt that be a bad
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 09:08:36AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> Until dpkg supports triggers, I think what the emacsen does it the
> most sane -- I'd be really, really happy if python modules/apps were
what do the emacsen do?
--
gram
On Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 02:48:46PM +1000, Peter Hawkins wrote:
> Hi...
>
>
> On Mon, 23 Sep 2002 02:31 pm, you wrote:
> > the python-biggles source package should produce a python-biggles
> > binary package that depends on python2.2-biggles. this would be in
> > addition to python2.[12]-biggles.
On Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 10:47:11PM +0200, Martin Sj?gren wrote:
> m??n 2002-09-23 klockan 22.34 skrev Graham Wilson:
> > > Not in my reading of python policy. As far as I can see the creation
> > > of a python-module package is optional. Then again the python policy
>
On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 02:05:32AM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> The reason I said site-packages is the _right_ way, is it makes mailman
> modules usable from other applications. However, I agree that we shouldn't
> _require_ application specific modules to be in site-packages, particularly
> when
On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 02:46:00PM +1100, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-01-31 at 09:59, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Le jeu 30/01/2003 ? 22:42, Bernhard Kuemel a ?crit :
> [...]
> > > ImportError: /usr/local/lib/python2.2/lib-dynload/math.so: undefined
> >^
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 03:37:24PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Based on the lists I posted earlier during the transition and on doko's
> lists of packages holding the move to testing, here is a summary of
> python-related packages which still have issues regarding the python
> policy. I have d
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 05:46:12PM -0600, Monty Taylor wrote:
> I've been told that I should ask here for help with sponsoring of debian
> packages that are in python.
I thought the policy was never to ask on package specific lists for help
with sponsoring; I could be mistaken though.
> If there'
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 09:17:46PM -0600, Monty Taylor wrote:
> On Thursday, Oct 30, 2003, at 20:59 US/Central, Graham Wilson wrote:
> >You really don't need a new upload just to close an NMU bug. You can
> >probably wait until you have some other bugs fixed (or new features)
On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 02:32:30PM -0500, Marco Paganini wrote:
> Another question: My application has some "skeleton" files that are copied
> to the user's home directory by an installation program. Robert Millan (my
> Debian guru, in the Cc:) has recommended /usr/share/doc/package/something,
> bu
On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 11:46:01PM +0200, Magnus Therning wrote:
> W: python-pyggy: script-not-executable
> ./usr/lib/python2.3/site-packages/pyggy/util.py
>
> How should this be resolved? Manually putting the executable bits on the
> files before packing? Removing '#!.*' in the mentioned files?
On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 08:18:34PM +0200, Fabian Fagerholm wrote:
> Secondly, the above scheme makes it impossible to install both
> packages at the same time. This is because both packages provide the
> same initscript, defaults file and logrotate file. [...] Another
> solution would be to split a
On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 08:54:43PM +0200, Fabian Fagerholm wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-02-10 at 20:44, Graham Wilson wrote:
> > This is the solution I use with the PyX package is to create a
> > python-pyx-common package that both of the versioned packages depend on.
> > This work
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 08:55:27PM +0200, Alberto Rodriguez Galdo wrote:
> Is there anyone working on this subject?, If not I would like to contribute
> packaging and maintaining the pylibpcap package for Debian.
Have you contacted the author of the ITP [1]? That would be my first
step.
[1] [EMA
On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 10:23:33PM +0200, radek wrote:
> Searching either for binaries or deb package for python-devel. anyone
> could help ??
apt-cache search python devel
(You're probably looking for the python-dev package.)
--
gram
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subj
On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 05:50:06PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> - Some infrastructure was implemented to remove all hardcoded
>information about versions in the packaging scripts, so that
>sourceless package rebuilds (binary NMUs) are enough to update
>a package for new/removed/defau
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 09:55:08PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> OK, then indicate "current" in XS-Python-Version and support only the
> current version in python-xpcom (make sure to generate the provides
> field).
Speaking of this, I have a module (python-pyx) that I think is only used
by end-u
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 11:22:27PM +0200, Piotr Ozarowski wrote:
> Graham Wilson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > Speaking of this, I have a module (python-pyx) that I think is only used
> > by end-users (not applications), so I think it makes sense to only
> > install modules a
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 11:43:21PM +0200, Piotr Ozarowski wrote:
> Graham Wilson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > That would happen anyway for new Python releases, plus, my understanding
> > is that with the new Python framework in place, supporting new Python
> > versions can be
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 11:45:32PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> that is correct. OTOH, each new upload to unstable may add a new
> dependency on a newly uploaded library having a more strict dependency
> or a new soname. If you build for the version we transition from, and
> for the version we tr
On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 11:06:53PM +0200, Piotr Ozarowski wrote:
> He can simply change /usr/bin/python symlink (that's very bad, but
> it's possible)
To be honest, I don't think it's worth supporting that, since the user
is basically breaking his Python install.
> or if he will need some feature
On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 06:43:32PM -0600, Jed Frechette wrote:
> This is exactly the situation I am in now. I want to use PyX for
> plotting but I need some of the features in Python 2.4. Well I
> probably don't need them, I am sure I could find work arounds, but why
> should I write code that is m
On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 11:24:28AM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> Supporting just one version, the current one, is fine. However, you do
> need to migrate the package to use pycentral, since dh_python alone will
> no longer manage the byte (re)compilation of the .py modules.
Speaking of which, does
24 matches
Mail list logo
