Hi,
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 12:45:26PM +0100, Jürgen Strobel wrote:
> In short I wanted the following to work with python2.6:
>
> ~/% python
> Python 2.5.5 (r255:77872, Feb 1 2010, 19:53:42)
> [GCC 4.4.3] on linux2
> Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
> >>> im
On 2010-03-03 2:19 PM, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 02:14:56PM +0100, Jürgen Strobel wrote:
>> From my understanding of upstream I disagree. See
>
> Then you didn't read close enough. Upstream only ships a module
> inside its tree. Not being in the system at all. The system inte
On 2010-03-02 3:04 PM, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 12:45:26PM +0100, Jürgen Strobel wrote:
>> Ok here we are at the root of the problem. I do *not* want another
>> python interpreter inside OOo. I fully understand there's only one, and
>> that's the debian default versi
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 02:14:56PM +0100, Jürgen Strobel wrote:
> From my understanding of upstream I disagree. See
Then you didn't read close enough. Upstream only ships a module
inside its tree. Not being in the system at all. The system integration
for that is just the proper packaging work dis
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 12:45:26PM +0100, Jürgen Strobel wrote:
> Ok here we are at the root of the problem. I do *not* want another
> python interpreter inside OOo. I fully understand there's only one, and
> that's the debian default version.
Aha. Then use python2.5 and be done.
> I want th
On 2010-03-01 7:23 PM, Rene Engelhard wrote:
>
> Besides the factthat basing a important project on *unstable* is questionable
> anyway, I'd very much buiild against 2.6, too - if it was default python.
> Ask the python guys why this isn't yet and when it will be. Not me.
The project spans at le
Hi,
On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 05:00:18PM +0100, Jürgen Strobel wrote:
> I wanted a 2.6 variant for completely different reasons than #476213
Maybe, but this is not relevant at all.
> Waiting for packages being built in unstable solves #476213 but not my
The first "problem" of #476213 is irreleva
On 2010-03-01 2:09 PM, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> tag 572064 + wontfix
> forcemerge 476213 572064
> thanks
>
> On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 01:35:23PM +0100, Jürgen Strobel wrote:
>> I am aware of #476213. This is not a request to fix temporary unstable
>> problems.
>
> Then you should not have filed a
572064: Please provide python-uno for other python version, at least 2.6
Forcibly Merged 476213 572064.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-o
tag 572064 + wontfix
forcemerge 476213 572064
thanks
On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 01:35:23PM +0100, Jürgen Strobel wrote:
> I am aware of #476213. This is not a request to fix temporary unstable
> problems.
Then you should not have filed a new bug out of it as #476213
got used for telling that I won'
Package: python-uno
Version: 1:3.1.1-16
Severity: wishlist
I am aware of #476213. This is not a request to fix temporary unstable problems.
I would very much like to have an additional python2.6-uno. After glancing
at debian/rules I feel unable to provide patches though.
Regards,
Jürgen Strobel
11 matches
Mail list logo
