On Apr 28, 2014, at 01:12 PM, Felipe Sateler wrote:
>Both soappy and fpconst seem dead upstream, which makes option 2 more
>attractive, but it looks like the soap implementations in python3 do
>not get along very well with debbugs, as Jordan notes.
A REST API would be fantastic. The best REST li
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Felipe Sateler wrote:
>
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=732644
>
> Reportbug uses debianbts, and debianbts in turn uses soappy. So it all
> depends on either porting soappy (and fpconst, used by soappy) to
> python3 or porting debianbts away fr
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Am 28.04.2014 16:34, schrieb Felipe Sateler:
>> On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 14:44:39 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
>>
>>> you are not writing which packages you are talking about ...
>>>
>>> Am 28.04.2014 12:16, schrieb Osamu Aoki:
python3 sup
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 3:16 AM, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Questions are how Debian Jessie packages should be packaged with regards
> to configuration choices etc.:
>
> wayland support or not (I am skipping ones using libwayland-dev now)
> python3 support or not (Are we moving too?)
> X sessi
Am 28.04.2014 16:34, schrieb Felipe Sateler:
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 14:44:39 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
>
>> you are not writing which packages you are talking about ...
>>
>> Am 28.04.2014 12:16, schrieb Osamu Aoki:
>>> python3 support or not (Are we moving too?)
>>
>> bindings and python modul
Le lundi 28 avril 2014 à 19:16 +0900, Osamu Aoki a écrit :
> I, as the ibus maintainer, tend to update ibus with almost the same
> compile options and patches used for the latest Fedora packages to make
> it behave well with GNOME3. (But I am also careful not to disable
> supports for other deskt
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 02:44:39PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> you are not writing which packages you are talking about ...
ibus source package
> Am 28.04.2014 12:16, schrieb Osamu Aoki:
> > python3 support or not (Are we moving too?)
/usr/bin/ibus-setup command in the ibus package fro
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 8:16 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 04/28/2014 06:16 PM, Osamu Aoki wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Questions are how Debian Jessie packages should be packaged with regards
>> to configuration choices etc.:
>>
>> wayland support or not (I am skipping ones using libwayland-dev now)
>>
On Apr 28, 2014, at 07:16 PM, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> python3 support or not (Are we moving too?)
I will of course echo Matthias and Thomas on the issue of Python 3 support.
I'd like to see us migrating to Python 3 for any "system" scripts,
i.e. scripts that come with Debian by default or are relied
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 14:44:39 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> you are not writing which packages you are talking about ...
>
> Am 28.04.2014 12:16, schrieb Osamu Aoki:
>> python3 support or not (Are we moving too?)
>
> bindings and python modules should be built for both Python2 and
> Python3. If
On Monday, April 28, 2014 14:44:39 Matthias Klose wrote:
> you are not writing which packages you are talking about ...
>
> Am 28.04.2014 12:16, schrieb Osamu Aoki:
> > python3 support or not (Are we moving too?)
>
> bindings and python modules should be built for both Python2 and Python3. If
>
On 04/28/2014 06:16 PM, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Questions are how Debian Jessie packages should be packaged with regards
> to configuration choices etc.:
>
> wayland support or not (I am skipping ones using libwayland-dev now)
> python3 support or not (Are we moving too?)
> X session autos
you are not writing which packages you are talking about ...
Am 28.04.2014 12:16, schrieb Osamu Aoki:
> python3 support or not (Are we moving too?)
bindings and python modules should be built for both Python2 and Python3. If you
cannot support both for some reason, please give Python3 the prefer
13 matches
Mail list logo
