On Monday 07 May 2007 20:43, Kevin Coyner wrote:
> I maintain the package rpl, which today received an RC bug
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=422604
>
> because it FTBFS in an autobuild on Lucas.
>
> The reason it failed is due to the use of unicode for the author's
> name in t
On Monday 07 May 2007 22:11, Ben Finney wrote:
> Scott Kitterman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > # -*- encoding: utf-8 -*-
>
> Specifically, the directive is 'coding: utf-8' inside those
> delimiters. ("encoding" will work also, but only because the
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 01:21:31 +0100 Bernd Zeimetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> Le mardi 06 novembre 2007 à 00:22 +0100, Bernd Zeimetz a écrit :
>>> Please get the _official_ Python Policy fixed and such requirements
>>> included if you like to have them.
>>
>> The officia
On Sunday 11 November 2007 15:39, Steffen Mutter wrote:
> Hi there!
>
> I subscribed to this list, cause my friend Martin 'Joey' Schulze adviced
> me to do so and tell you about the matter I spotted...
>
> The problem is not really a debian problem, cause the packages work well
> and no dependencie
On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 17:34:05 +0100 "Sandro Tosi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Hi all,
>I'd like to report here my feelings about the current way to maintain
>package in our repositories (DPMT and PAPT).
>
>As of now, policy[1] states that:
>
> Thus if you bring some packages into the team, you can
On Sunday 24 August 2008 18:03, Eike Nicklas wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have a program that depends on python >= 2.4 and elementtree (which
> is included in python >= 2.5).
>
> What is the best way to express this dependency in debian/control
> (I am using python-support)?
>
> a) Depends: python (>=2.4
On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 18:23:41 +0100 Emilio Pozuelo Monfort
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Sandro Tosi wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> following up what once POX suggested on irc, I'd like to switch from
>> wsvn to viewsvn (compare the difference yourself at [1] and [2]) for
>> Vcs-Browser field.
>
>Please! Also,
On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 21:00:40 + b...@bc-bd.org wrote:
>...
>Simply removing the package may be a bad idea, as people who are using
>revelation will then no longer be able to access their password lists.
>...
Removing the package from the archive won't remove it from installed
systems.
If it's
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 09:10:35 +0100 "PaweB Tcza" wrote:
>Scott Kitterman pisze:
>> On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 21:00:40 + b...@bc-bd.org wrote:
>>>...
>>>Simply removing the package may be a bad idea, as people who are using
>>>revelation will then no
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 11:24:35 +0100 "PaweB Tcza" wrote:
>Scott Kitterman pisze:
>> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 09:10:35 +0100 "PaweB Tcza"
wrote:
>>>Scott Kitterman pisze:
>>>> On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 21:00:40 + b...@bc-bd.org wrote:
>>>&
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 15:08:03 +0100 Loïc Minier wrote:
>On Mon, Dec 08, 2008, Ondrej Certik wrote:
>> P.S. bzed, POX, isn't it time to move our packaging to git? So that I
>> can just commit such patches in a branch and also so that we don't
>> have to mess with the orig.tar.gz, svn-uscan and other
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 20:01:06 +0100 Pietro Battiston wrote:
>Il giorno mar, 23/12/2008 alle 11.41 -0500, Scott Kitterman ha scritto:
>> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 15:08:03 +0100 Loïc Minier wrote:
>> >On Mon, Dec 08, 2008, Ondrej Certik wrote:
>> >> P.S. bzed, POX, isn'
On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 03:58:13 +0300 anatoly techtonik
wrote:
>If we are all Python developers to some degree and know about PEP 374
>- what do you think about switching from SVN to HG for maintaining
>Debian packages? There is also "convert" extension that may allow to
>convert history from other
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 11:49:20 +0200 Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>Steve Langasek wrote:
>> The XS-Python-Version field was specified as a tool for detecting,
without
>> having to download and inspect individual source packages, that a given
>> package can be successfully rebuilt for a python transition, t
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 12:21:07 +0200 Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>There was a policy process?
Apparently we still need one of these. Can we work on solving this? I
think having a mechanism to create an actual current, maintained Python
policy is a pre-requisite to solving a lot of these problems.
Sc
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 15:52:57 +0200 Josselin Mouette wrote:
>Le mardi 08 septembre 2009 à 09:35 -0400, Scott Kitterman a écrit :
>> Does pyversions offer any real advantages over XS-...? All things being
>> equal, if both helpers support a common method for this I think we shou
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 17:48:18 +0200 Josselin Mouette wrote:
>Le mardi 08 septembre 2009 à 21:50 +0700, Mikhail Gusarov a écrit :
>> Twas brillig at 16:42:41 08.09.2009 UTC+02 when pi...@debian.org did gyre
>> and gimble:
>>
>> PO> I.e. using build dependencies to determine[1] requested Python
>
On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 19:06:17 +0200 Piotr O|arowski wrote:
...
>how about using build dependencies *if* pyversions and XS-P-V are not
>set and removing support of these fields once all packages will
>use the new approach?
Seems reasonable.
Scott K
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 19:19:12 +0200 Josselin Mouette wrote:
>Le mardi 08 septembre 2009 à 19:06 +0200, Piotr O|arowski a écrit :
>> > Since the build-dep approach should have agreement from all the helper
>> > maintainers before it moves forward, I think it would be a good first
>> > step to mark
>
>
>
> Akira Kitada wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 12:27 AM, Nicolas Chauvat
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> It would indeed be nice if someone could list the hurdles that stand
>>> between us and Python 2.6 in Squeeze, or point us to the web page that
>>> lists them.
>>>
>>> Python2.6 is in experimental
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 00:54:04 +0100 Luca Falavigna
wrote:
>Currently, Lintian supports dozen of tags [1], but very few strictly
>related to Python packaging. I think maintainers and sponsors would
>benefit a lot if some common mistakes and suggestions are automatically
>displayed by Lintian.
>
>I p
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 21:22:47 +1100 Ben Finney
wrote:
>Luca Falavigna writes:
>
>> Scott Kitterman ha scritto:
>> > Since we currently lack anything like a maintained Python policy, I
>> > think this is putting the cart before the horse. [ &]
>
>>
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 16:50:00 +0300 anatoly techtonik wrote:
>On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>>
>> I'm not aware of any ongoing work. I would be willing to help work on such
>> a thing, but we currently lack a good mechanism for developing/
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 19:02:21 +0100 Josselin Mouette wrote:
>Le lundi 02 novembre 2009 à 21:22 +1100, Ben Finney a écrit :
>> Is there a silent Debian Python policy drafter out there who would like
>> to step forward? Or is this work now moribund?
>
>Bug reports concerning the Python policy have b
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 14:58:47 +0100 Loïc Minier wrote:
>On Thu, Dec 10, 2009, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> Rationale: let s consider a package foo that uses python2.4 directly
>> (with a python2.4 shebang), and depends on python2.4-foo, provided by
>> python-foo, which in turn depends on python-bar.
I think we are at the point where the proposed update to the Python Policy is
clearly more relevant and better than what is currently published. Once this
is done, we can work on refinements. Loïc Minier (lool) did attempt to send
the proposed final patch set to the list and it has gotten stuc
> Hello,
>
> The policy is under GPL license which is kind of ridiculous to prevent
> citing Debian Policy in private talks. I imagine people discussing
> "those folks at Debian. Have you heard - they've changed you-know-what
> to make packaging easier". =)
>
> Is there any license that more clearl
doko uploaded the new policy in python-defaults, so we can consider this
edition complete. Certainly it's not perfect and I'll be keeping an eye on
bug submissions.
I've also been added to uploaders for python-defaults and will continue to
work on this.
I know a lot of effort has been made to
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 22:56:22 + David D Lowe
wrote:
>Hello all.
>
>I'm the author of Epidermis, a theme manager for GNOME. More details
>at: http://epidermis.tuxfamily.org
>
>Until now, I've only ever tested and released Epidermis for Ubuntu,
>however, I'm interested making Epidermis support a
a diff from
what's in Testing/Unstable now.
Comments please.
Scott K
Debian Python Policy
Neil Schemenauer
Matthias Klose
Gregor Hoffleit
Jos
"Piotr Ożarowski" wrote:
>> The Ubuntu MOTUs require that the packages land first in Debian.
>
>require? good ;-)
Require is a bit strong. I've more than once strongly encouraged people to
come to debian-python as the best way to go about it.
Scott K
http://packages.qa.debian.org/p/python-defaults/news/20100122T123227Z.html
We're looking into scheduling another round of binNMUs and raising the
severity of existing Python 2.6 transition bugs.
Once the analysis of additional sourceful uploads needed is done, we'll post
that as well.
Scott
> Scott Kitterman (17/12/2009):
>> I believe that we are getting close to uploading Python 2.6 to
>> Unstable and dropping Python 2.4 as a supported Python version. If
>> we finish preparations in the next week, are there any ongoing
>> transitions a python2.6/py
> Elliot Murphy writes:
>
>> (Sorry for top-posting, android does not allow me any other option).
>
> I wonder why people who use Android keep on doing this an apologising
> for it, instead of the far superior options:
>
> * don't use Android, and/or
> * agitate for this Android bug to be fixed.
> Elliot Murphy writes:
>
>> It's rather obnoxious to assume I didn't communicate as an individual
>> asking for assistance. When I did that, jwilk told me to add the
>> package to the list of packages in the topic waiting to be reviewed,
>> as is the standard operating procedure for the DPMT. It'
"Jonathan Wiltshire" wrote:
>On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 07:11:55AM -0500, Michael Shuler wrote:
>> I would enjoy some feedback from the python team on this package, if
>> someone has a bit of time to review my work.
>
>I can't sponsor your work, but a brief review.
>
>There are just a couple of th
On Monday, April 19, 2010 05:53:05 pm Barry Warsaw wrote:
> Apologies for the cross-post, but I want to make sure that everyone who
> cares about Python on both Debian and Ubuntu gets a chance to weigh in.
>
> On Friday, Guido approved and I landed the implementation of PEP 3147 on
> the py3k trun
"Barry Warsaw" wrote:
>On Apr 20, 2010, at 04:57 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
>>I think it is difficult to know for sure what the future will hold. If the
>>backport is not technically complex, I think a backport with the default to
>>off would be a
"Barry Warsaw" wrote:
>So, on to Python...
>
>I've started a wiki page which I'll use to collate all the work on Python
>versions for Ubuntu 10.10:
>
>https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MaverickMeerkat/TechnicalOverview/Python
>
>In summary, we would really like Maverick to ship Python 2.6, 2.7, and 3.2
>
Last night I started looking at porting pyversions to Python 3 with the idea of
providing a py3versions in python3-defaults. The plan would be to have
python3.1 as the default and only supported version for Squeeze.
The goal is to have the run time requirements for python3 not require python2.
> [Piotr Ożarowski, 2010-05-19]
>> we have experimental for aggressive changes...
>
> unless you wanted to use Debian experimental, debian-python mailing list
> and our help since the beginning and later sync it in Ubuntu (if you
> decide it's ready and we will not want to make further changes).
>
This has been discussed a bit, but I'd like to see where Debian Python
consensus is on this.
I think users who don't care about Python 3 yet, should be able to have
systems that don't pull any Python 3 elements on by accident. Python 3 is
primarily of interest to developers right now and most
"Lino Mastrodomenico" wrote:
>2010/5/26 Scott Kitterman :
>> This would mean separate python-foo and python3-foo binaries where both are
>> supported from the same source.
>
>What will happen in the not-so-close future when Python 2.x is no
>longer sup
n/python-policy.sgml'
--- debian/python-policy.sgml 2010-05-17 11:00:27 +
+++ debian/python-policy.sgml 2010-06-05 23:22:07 +
@@ -32,7 +32,7 @@
Scott Kitterman
sc...@kitterman.com
- version 0.9.0.0
+ version 0.9.1.0
This document describes the packa
As was recently discussed on debian-python:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2010/05/msg00111.html
String exceptions are no longer supported at all in Python 2.6. Since this is
the Python version planned to be the default in Squeeze, packages still using
them should be fixed. String exce
"Jakub Wilk" wrote:
>* Scott Kitterman , 2010-06-05, 19:31:
>>+ will represent the current default Debian Python version. The
>>+ binary package python3 will represent the current
>>+ Debian Python3 version. As far as is reasonable, python
On Sunday, June 06, 2010 08:46:01 am Scott Kitterman wrote:
> "Jakub Wilk" wrote:
> >* Scott Kitterman , 2010-06-05, 19:31:
> >>+ will represent the current default Debian Python version. The
> >>+ binary package python3 will represent the current
The version of Python Policy that was just uploaded to unstable is the first
one that attempts to address Python3. It is just a start and more changes are
needed.
POX and I were just discussion this and discovered that we had been carrying
different assumptions about how packages would be expr
"Luca Falavigna" wrote:
>Il 18/06/2010 14.37, Scott Kitterman ha scritto:
>> XS-Python-Version: >= 2.x
>> XS-Python3-Version: >= 3.x
>>
>> This avoids any risk of existing packages inadvertently expressing support
>> for
>> a Python
"Barry Warsaw" wrote:
>On Jun 18, 2010, at 03:45 PM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
>
>>[Luca Falavigna, 2010-06-18]
>>> Il 18/06/2010 14.37, Scott Kitterman ha scritto:
>>> > XS-Python-Version: >= 2.x
>>> > XS-Python3-Version: >= 3.x
&g
On Saturday, June 19, 2010 07:06:35 am Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> On 06/18/2010 07:11 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > I don't think we need a new debian/control field to achieve the
> > separation. pyversions (as of yesterday's upload) ignores any python3
> > versions
On Sunday, June 20, 2010 03:54:30 pm Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Saturday, June 19, 2010 07:06:35 am Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> > On 06/18/2010 07:11 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > > I don't think we need a new debian/control field to achieve the
> > > separation. pyve
On Monday, June 21, 2010 05:40:37 pm Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Jun 20, 2010, at 04:28 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> >> I'm going to declare rough consensus around this approach and I'll have
> >> a Python policy patch for review shortly.
>
> I haven'
"Barry Warsaw" wrote:
>On Jun 21, 2010, at 06:30 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
>>I think most people install Python modules and extensions as dependencies of
>>applications they care to use. For Python developers that actually care
>>about such things, I think
"Paul Wise" wrote:
>On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 6:30 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
>> If we maintain a standard that if in Python you import foo, then the Python
>> package name is python-foo and the Python3 package is names python3-foo, I
>> would think this i
"Paul Wise" wrote:
>I don't agree with your analysis. I was hoping someone else would
>speak up before your proposal got implemented, but I can see that
>doesn't look like it will happen. I would like you to consult with a
>wider audience, at least -devel and -release, before Debian changes
>th
"Alexandre Rossi" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>The current version of my package does not launch in unstable
>following the switch of the current python version. I think it is
>because of the "current" keyword in the "XS-Python-Version" tag. A
>rebuild fixes the problem.
>
>Is this appropriate fix?
>-XS-Pyth
Subj: Future requirements for specifying supported Python versions and
transition support
In Debian Python we are currently discussing how best to specify version
information for Python 3. There is a strong (but not unanimous) view among
the participants in debian-pyt...@l.d.o and #debian-pyth
"Piotr Ożarowski" wrote:
>[Scott Kitterman, 2010-06-23]
>> 3. Create a new field, X-Python-Version: for Python3 versions. This avoids
>> concerns about control file bloat, but may be a bit confusing in combination
>> with the existing XS/B-P-V.
>
>
"Josselin Mouette" wrote:
>Le mercredi 23 juin 2010 à 13:15 -0400, Scott Kitterman a écrit :
>> 1. Use XS/B-P-V for Python and Python3 versions
>> 2. Create a new set of fields, XS/B-Python3-Version.
>> 3. Create a new field, X-Python-Version: for Python3 vers
On Wednesday, June 23, 2010 10:01:03 pm Paul Wise wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 1:15 AM, Scott Kitterman
wrote:
> > In Debian Python we are currently discussing how best to specify version
> > information for Python 3. There is a strong (but not unanimous) view
> > amon
On Wednesday, June 23, 2010 11:08:47 pm Paul Wise wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Scott Kitterman
wrote:
> > The email is meant to go to the release team to address what I understand
> > to be release team specific requirement. I think that the broader
> >
"Josselin Mouette" wrote:
>Le mercredi 23 juin 2010 à 21:17 -0400, Scott Kitterman a écrit :
>> >5. End this madness and use the version in build-dependencies instead of
>> >asking maintainers to specify it twice - which they usually do wrong.
>> >
>
Thanks for everyone's comments. Sent:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2010/06/msg00211.html
Scott K
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100625
As I had said I would after the last round, I asked the release team about any
specific requirements they might have for Python version specification. They
don't. My summary of the thread is "We want it to be easy". The thread
starts here for those interested:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-
On Wednesday, June 30, 2010 04:51:38 pm Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> [Scott Kitterman, 2010-06-30]
>
> > For Python3:
> >
> > 1. A new field called X-Python3-Version: It does not support lists of
> > versions (e.g. (3.0, 3.1)). Acceptable values are a single version
"Barry Warsaw" wrote:
>On Jun 30, 2010, at 04:58 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
>>On Wednesday, June 30, 2010 04:51:38 pm Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
>>> [Scott Kitterman, 2010-06-30]
>>>
>>> > For Python3:
>>> >
>>>
"Scott Kitterman" wrote:
>As I had said I would after the last round, I asked the release team about any
>specific requirements they might have for Python version specification. They
>don't. My summary of the thread is "We want it to be easy". The thread
"Sandro Tosi" wrote:
>Hi Scott,
>thanks for bringing this up (again :) ).
>
>On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 22:41, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> As I had said I would after the last round, I asked the release team about
>> any
>> specific requirements they mig
On Tuesday, July 13, 2010 05:05:14 pm Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> [Barry Warsaw, 2010-07-13]
>
> > * http://wiki.debian.org/DebianPython
> > * http://wiki.debian.org/Python
>
> I removed some really old pages with "Python" in the URL
>
> What do you think about renaming all /DebianPython.* to /Py
http://paste.debian.net/83034/ captures what I think are the essential policy
changes for Squeeze from our discussion about the future of XS-Python-Version
and Python 3. Please give it a quick review and let me know if I
misrepresented the consensus. I intentionally did not include the elimina
On Friday, August 13, 2010 11:10:04 am Scott Kitterman wrote:
> http://paste.debian.net/83034/ captures what I think are the essential
> policy changes for Squeeze from our discussion about the future of
> XS-Python-Version and Python 3. Please give it a quick review and let me
&g
On Friday, August 13, 2010 04:58:37 pm Sandro Tosi wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 22:47, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > On Friday, August 13, 2010 11:10:04 am Scott Kitterman wrote:
> >> http://paste.debian.net/83034/ captures what I think are the essential
On Friday, August 13, 2010 05:42:35 pm Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Scott Kitterman , 2010-08-13, 17:32:
> >IMO the essential thing for Squeeze was getting X-P-V and X3-P-V
> >supported.
>
> Well, but python-support, the most widely used helper, doesn't support
> X-P-V. So
On Saturday, August 14, 2010 03:09:35 am Sandro Tosi wrote:
> Hello,
> there was a BoF[1] about the plans for python in squeeze+1 but no
> minutes was sent to the list: 8 days are passed, so we have waited
> (while others, like perl team, sent it moments after the bof).
>
> [1] http://penta.debcon
On Friday, October 15, 2010 05:45:24 pm Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> FYI: [I already mentioned that on #debian-python and in other places,
> but it deserves a mail to debian-python as well]
>
> I think that we should support Python 2.7 and Python 3.2 only in Wheezy.
>
> Python 2.7 is the last version
"Andrey Rahmatullin" wrote:
>On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 01:08:34AM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote:
>> >How about supporting both python (default being Python 2.7) and
>python3
>> >(default being Python 3.x, x=2 in Wheezy?) forever as two separate
>> >languages?
>> That's the plan. Except maybe "forever"
On Tuesday, February 15, 2011 08:12:37 am Picca Frédéric-Emmanuel wrote:
> Le Mon, 14 Feb 2011 17:40:59 +0100,
>
> Picca Frédéric-Emmanuel a
écrit :
> > Hello,
> > I am working on a packqge which use PyQt4, but When I try to test it
> > I got this error message.
> >
> > picca@grisette:~/Debian/
On Tuesday, February 22, 2011 09:58:36 am Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> On 02/22/2011 03:47 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> > It would be nice if dh auto-detected a setup.py (and/or missing Makefile)
> > and didn't run 'make test' in that case, so that the
> > override_dh_auto_test wasn't necessary. Yah, I sho
On Friday, March 04, 2011 08:30:02 am ProgVal wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Python 2.7 is available in the Experimental repository, and I use it as the
> default Python interpreter.
> All modules and software I use works Python 2.7, but, modules and libraries
> installed with aptitude are installed for Pyth
On Friday, March 04, 2011 01:23:40 pm Barry Warsaw wrote:
> So I know many of you are on python-dev, so you might have seen this come
> up, but traffic there can be pretty heavy at times.
>
> Upstream Python recommends that the shebang line for scripts should be
>
> #!/usr/bin/env python
>
> how
"Piotr Ożarowski" wrote:
any objections to change all shebangs (that do not match
/usr/bin/python\d(\.\d+) but do math .+python.* regexp) to /usr/bin/python¹ in
dh_python2 and to /usr/bin/python3 in dh_python3? (+ an option to disable this
behaviour in both helpers) if yes, should options (-OO
On Friday, March 04, 2011 08:06:55 pm Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Piotr Ożarowski , 2011-03-05, 01:39:
> >>>dh_python2 and dh_python3 cannot be used for the same files at the
> >>>same time (that's why dh_python2 igores python3-* packages, that's
> >>>why dh_python3 ignores python-* packages and that's w
On Sunday, March 06, 2011 12:43:23 pm Sandro Tosi wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 17:33, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> > Is this a Debian-wide decision, or can each subteam go its own way?
>
> each team can decide on its own, but git is very wide accepted within
> Debian, which is to be considered when c
Robert Collins wrote:
>On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 7:52 AM, Scott Kitterman
>wrote:
>...
>> reasonably comfortable for both. It's not as fast a git and it
>suffers from
>> not being able to do partial checkouts (like git), so it's very much
>a middle
>> g
On Sunday, March 06, 2011 03:02:25 pm Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Mar 2011, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > One thing that is a clear advantage for bzr is that it supports both a
> > traditional centralized workflow and modern DVCS workflow so that not
> > everyone
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition
It looks like we are ready to switch the default python3 in Unstable from 3.1
to 3.2. It should affect a relatively small number of packages.
Source uploads needed:
distribute pyt
On Thursday, March 10, 2011 06:15:01 am Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2011, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> > seriously, THERE WILL BE NO NEW PYTHON 2.X VERSION RELEASED UPSTREAM¹,
> > we don't have to worry about 2.X transitions when 2.7 will become the
> > only supported one. If you don't like
Floris Bruynooghe wrote:
Hi The wiki page at http://wiki.debian.org/Python/PyCentral2DhPython2 tells you
to remove the XB-Python-Version lines in debian/control but the python policy
still says they are required in section 2.3. I presume this is outdated in the
policy? If so any reason why thi
Today's mail on XB-Python-Version motivates me to send out an overdue call for
inputs on further changes to the Python policy. I know that needs to go.
What else needs doing?
Personally I'd like to concentrate on getting policy for Python 3 to the point
that it's possible to produce a correct
On Friday, March 18, 2011 10:23:05 pm Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Today's mail on XB-Python-Version motivates me to send out an overdue call
> for inputs on further changes to the Python policy. I know that needs to
> go.
>
> What else needs doing?
>
> Personally I'd
On Thursday, March 24, 2011 09:35:21 am Stefano Rivera wrote:
> I see we still suggest ${python:Provides}. I was encouraged in
> #debian-python to never use these unless there's an existing
> dependency on a versioned package name.
>
> There are no real packages using a name like python2.X-modulen
Most of you probably figured this out already from the cc: of 619487 to
debian-python, but just in case ...
dh_python2 dropped ${python:Breaks} - This means you should remove Breaks:
${python:Breaks} from packages as you update them. In the mean time, it's
presence is harmless so there's no ne
A couple of days ago I updated python-defaults and today (it's still Thursday
in my mind because I haven't slept yet) I updated python3-defaults. Unstable
now how the latest dh_python2/dh_python3 and pycompile changes.
The only difference between Unstable and Experimental is which Python/Pyth
On Thursday, March 31, 2011 09:54:46 AM Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Mar 30, 2011, at 04:02 PM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> >FYI: I plan to upload python-sphinx, python-defaults (without Python
> >2.5, with Python 2.7) and python3-defaults (with Python 3.2 instead of
> >Python 3.2) tomorrow. Please report
The release team has ack'ed the python3 transition (See #617272). I'll upload
a new python3-defaults shortly. Once that's in we'll start with the required
sourceful uploads and binNMUs. Over the next few days, please keep an eye on
any python3 related uploads for unusual results. Since python
I just uploaded python-defaults to Unstable that drops Python 2.5 and adds
Python 2.7 as supports Python versions. Python-central, distribute, and
python-stdlib-extensions are already updated to support Python 2.7. The
planned python-support upload later today will complete having the core Pyt
On Thursday, April 21, 2011 09:28:12 PM Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Apr 15, 2011, at 10:17 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> >I just uploaded python-defaults to Unstable that drops Python 2.5 and adds
> >Python 2.7 as supports Python versions. Python-central, distribute, and
> >pyt
Lars Wirzenius wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I'd like to join the DPMT. I'm going to be uploading my backup
>application (Obnam, http://braawi.org/obnam/) to Debian, and it has a
>number of dependencies on Python libraries, which I've also written.
>I'm
>starting with the dependencies.
>
>In order to have the p
Floris Bruynooghe wrote:
>On 22 April 2011 19:55, Stefano Rivera wrote:
>> Hi Barry (2011.04.22_03:28:12_+0200)
>>> When I click on 'last log' for say ia64, I just see a build log with
>>> no failures in it. So why does it show up on the main page with
>>> straight red-X's?
>>
>> The transition
1 - 100 of 781 matches
Mail list logo
