Bug#910563: ITP: radon -- Code metric generator for python

2018-10-08 Thread Neil Williams
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Neil Williams * Package name: radon Version : 2.3.1 Upstream Author : 2012-2017 Michele Lacchia * URL : https://github.com/rubik/radon * License : BSD Programming Lang: Python Description : Code metric generator f

Bug#910564: ITP: mando -- command line argument parser for python

2018-10-08 Thread Neil Williams
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Neil Williams * Package name: mando Version : 0.6.4 Upstream Author : 2013 Michele Lacchia * URL : https://github.com/rubik/mando * License : MIT Programming Lang: Python Description : command line argument parser

Bug#910565: ITP: intelhex -- Intel HEX microcontroller format support for Python

2018-10-08 Thread Neil Williams
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Neil Williams * Package name: intelhex Version : 2.1 Upstream Author : 2005-2016 Alexander Belchenko * URL : https://github.com/bialix/intelhex * License : BSD Programming Lang: Python Description : Intel HEX micr

Bug#910566: ITP: pyocd -- ARM Cortex-M programming tools (Python3)

2018-10-08 Thread Neil Williams
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Neil Williams * Package name: pyocd Version : 0.12.0+dfsg Upstream Author : ARM Limited * URL : https://github.com/mbedmicro/pyOCD * License : Apache-2.0 Programming Lang: Python Description : ARM Cortex-M program

Bug#910567: O: sn

2018-10-08 Thread Hilko Bengen
Package: wnpp Severity: normal I haven't used sn, a small NNTP server for leaf sites, in many years. There has been no active upstream for even more years. The package will be auto-removed from testing soon because of #909928. If the person willing to take this package over has no upload rights,

Re: Updating the policy for conflicting binaries names ? [was: Re: Re: New package netgen-lvs with binary /usr/bin/netgen - already taken]

2018-10-08 Thread Steffen Möller
Hello, On 09.09.18 02:11, Russ Allbery wrote: > Paride Legovini writes: > >> However, there are clearly cases where renaming binaries makes several >> people unhappy (most likely: the package maintainers, upstream, people >> writing scripts, users of different distributions), while not making a >

Re: Limiting the power of packages

2018-10-08 Thread Jonathan Dowland
On Sun, Oct 07, 2018 at 01:06:54PM +0200, Tomas Pospisek wrote: I think Linux systems per se, Debian as a runtime, the (social) processes required from DDs/DMs, the whole technical Debian packaging ecosystem are each plenty complex enough already. … they IMHO should serve as a dimension to meas

Re: Asciidoc transition to the python3 implementation or just EOL

2018-10-08 Thread Ian Jackson
Joseph Herlant writes ("Asciidoc transition to the python3 implementation or just EOL"): > There are currently 2 ways possible to handle the transition: Follows, 3 ways :-). Why would a user want the old python2 asciidoc ? AFAICT from the outside of the program the implementation language is a

Re: Updating the policy for conflicting binaries names ? [was: Re: Re: New package netgen-lvs with binary /usr/bin/netgen - already taken]

2018-10-08 Thread Ian Jackson
Steffen Möller writes ("Re: Updating the policy for conflicting binaries names ? [was: Re: Re: New package netgen-lvs with binary /usr/bin/netgen - already taken]"): > If someone > happens to be in two such communities then Debian makes it easy enough > for everyone to just install a package quic

Re: Updating the policy for conflicting binaries names ? [was: Re: Re: New package netgen-lvs with binary /usr/bin/netgen - already taken]

2018-10-08 Thread Colin Watson
On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 01:14:10PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > Steffen Möller writes ("Re: Updating the policy for conflicting binaries > names ? [was: Re: Re: New package netgen-lvs with binary /usr/bin/netgen - > already taken]"): > > If someone > > happens to be in two such communities then De

Re: Asciidoc transition to the python3 implementation or just EOL

2018-10-08 Thread Jonathan Dowland
On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 01:04:52PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: 3. have people just move to asciidoctor (it's way more actively maintained and tested, plus, most package support both nowadays) and just let the python implementation die naturally I know nothing about this. What are the relative ad

Re: Asciidoc transition to the python3 implementation or just EOL

2018-10-08 Thread Ian Jackson
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Asciidoc transition to the python3 implementation or just EOL"): > I know nothing about this. What are the relative advantages and > disadvantages of asciidoctor vs asciidoc ? Do they process the same > documents in exactly the same way ? It occurs to me that this might

Bug#910603: ITP: theme-d-gnome -- GNOME bindings for programming language Theme-D

2018-10-08 Thread Tommi Höynälänmaa
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: =?utf-8?b?VG9tbWkgSMO2eW7DpGzDpG5tYWE=?= Package name: theme-d-gnome Version : 0.7.0 Upstream Author : Tommi Höynälänmaa URL : http://www.iki.fi/tohoyn/theme-d/theme-d-gnome.html License : GPL, LGPL, and GFDL Pro

Re: Asciidoc transition to the python3 implementation or just EOL

2018-10-08 Thread Florian Weimer
* Joseph Herlant: > Hi guys, > > As announces a while ago in #895462, the asciidoc package which only > support python2 is officially EOL. > > Notes: > * The python 2 implementation of asciidoc which, for now, lives at > https://github.com/asciidoc/asciidoc won't receive any new updates > * The py

Re: Asciidoc transition to the python3 implementation or just EOL

2018-10-08 Thread Joseph Herlant
Hi guys, Thanks for you answers. On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 5:04 AM Ian Jackson wrote: > Why would a user want the old python2 asciidoc ? AFAICT from the > outside of the program the implementation language is a hidden > detail. Haha! I've seen people strictly against the upgrade from python 2 to