On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 06:27:13PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-12-28 at 18:14 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > What about users who are depending on Python 2.3? Do they just lose?
> > Users who depend on obsolete software always lose when the bar moves.
On Friday 29 December 2006 03:10, Steve Langasek wrote:
> It was? I don't remember this... I certainly wanted to make sure etch
> didn't release with ancient, lingering versions of python like 2.1 and
> 2.2, but from a release POV I never had strong feelings about getting
On Thu, 2006-12-28 at 18:14 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > What about users who are depending on Python 2.3? Do they just lose?
>
> Users who depend on obsolete software always lose when the bar moves. I
> don't find that a compelling reason to keep python2.3 around f
On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 02:21:40PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-12-20 at 19:51 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 11:17:03AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > > The python team has apparently decreed that python 2.3 will not be in
ase with ancient, lingering versions of python like 2.1 and 2.2,
but from a release POV I never had strong feelings about getting rid of
python 2.3, which was the current version in sarge. Indeed, it would be
nice to have overlap in the supported versions between one release and the
next, tho
On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 00:38 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> An explicitely stated goal of the release team was to reduce the
> number of supported python versions for the next stable release. We
> did include three python versions for sarge (2.[123]). To reduce that
> count we do have to drop 2.3 (
On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 00:38 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> To conclude, the support of multiple python versions is not meant at
> all as an excuse for lazy debian maintainers depending on python for
> not following upstream python development.
Are you calling me lazy for not fixing a bug that you
On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 12:38:05AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> An explicitely stated goal of the release team was to reduce the
> number of supported python versions for the next stable release. We
> did include three python versions for sarge (2.[123]).
Actually, four: 2.4 is also in sarge (ma
Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
> On Wed, 2006-12-20 at 19:51 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 11:17:03AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > > The python team has apparently decreed that python 2.3 will not be in
> > > etch. This forces every pac
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> What about users who are depending on Python 2.3? Do they just lose?
> It seems to me that for things like this, our releases should always
> have the next-oldest version as an option for those users.
They can continue to use Sarge.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
On Wed, 2006-12-20 at 19:51 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 11:17:03AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > The python team has apparently decreed that python 2.3 will not be in
> > etch. This forces every package to use the new version. Surely it is
>
On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 11:17:03AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> The python team has apparently decreed that python 2.3 will not be in
> etch. This forces every package to use the new version. Surely it is
> too late in the release cycle to be risking regressions in this way?
T
Thomas Bushnell BSG a écrit :
> On Wed, 2006-12-20 at 01:25 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
>>> The python team has apparently decreed that python 2.3 will not be in
>>> etch. This forces every package to use the new version. Surely it is
On Wed, 2006-12-20 at 01:25 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
> > The python team has apparently decreed that python 2.3 will not be in
> > etch. This forces every package to use the new version. Surely it is
> > too late in the release cycle to be r
Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
> The python team has apparently decreed that python 2.3 will not be in
> etch. This forces every package to use the new version. Surely it is
> too late in the release cycle to be risking regressions in this way?
"every package" = gnucash
pleas
The python team has apparently decreed that python 2.3 will not be in
etch. This forces every package to use the new version. Surely it is
too late in the release cycle to be risking regressions in this way?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 11:42:18AM +0200, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> * Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-10-15 02:26]:
>
> > A version of python2.3 that sets the default python version to 2.3 has
> > been accepted into testing. It should now be safe to upload python
> > packages that were pr
* Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-10-15 02:26]:
> A version of python2.3 that sets the default python version to 2.3 has
> been accepted into testing. It should now be safe to upload python
> packages that were previously in a mini-freeze.
Good work. Congratulations to all the people invo
python2.3 |2.3.2-2 | testing | source, alpha, arm, hppa, i386, ia64,
m68k, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, sparc
python2.3 |2.3.2-2 | unstable | source, alpha, arm, hppa, i386, ia64,
m68k, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, sparc
A version of python2.3 that sets the default python ve
FYI,
[ This mail is sent to all package maintainers, whose packages depend
on python, python2.1, python2.2 or python2.3 ]
You are maintaining the following packages:
To help python2.3 to enter the testing (sarge) release as the default
python version, we need a whole bunch of packages to ent
20 matches
Mail list logo
