-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/04/11 00:37, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> However, the combination of "running on Ubuntu 11.04+" and "need to
> build security patched version of old Python" seems unlikely.
Well, I, for one, have Python 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 3.1 and 3.2
installed i
On Apr 02, 2011, at 10:55 AM, Stefan Krah wrote:
>In this case, it's clearly Ubuntu who is going to break things. Still,
>the proposed patch could make life a lot easier for many people.
I'd be more concerned about adding some Debian/Ubuntu special code to setup.py
if it wasn't already a rats nes
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> > >> Even if their servers won't run ubuntu 11.04+ (or something with the
> > >> same library paths), their development environments will.
> > >
> > >They can also patch the Python releases themselves, or use Ubuntu
> > >packages that someone else made for them (they can pr
On 4/1/2011 7:52 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
necessary, I leave it alone. I think we're still due one last bug fix release
of Python 3.1, right?
Yes, hopefully soon.
--
Terry Jan Reedy
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.pyth
> >> Even if their servers won't run ubuntu 11.04+ (or something with the
> >> same library paths), their development environments will.
> >
> >They can also patch the Python releases themselves, or use Ubuntu
> >packages that someone else made for them (they can probably just install
> >the old 2
On Apr 01, 2011, at 09:47 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> FWIW - I maintain legacy code for python2.4, and 2.5 (mainly 2.5).
>[...]
>> As a result, I'm very much +1 on integrating this patch to previous
>> versions.
>
>Updating 2.4 is clearly out of question; and I veto changing 2.5 in
>that respect
Am 01.04.2011 18:31, schrieb Antoine Pitrou:
> On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 17:39:59 +0200
> Georg Brandl wrote:
>> Am 01.04.2011 14:49, schrieb Antoine Pitrou:
>> > On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 13:37:42 +0100
>> > Michael Foord wrote:
>> >> > I think I was unclear: I'm not advocating doing doc fixes in
>> >> > s
Am 01.04.2011 21:54, schrieb Eric Smith:
> On 4/1/2011 3:52 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>>> And I don't see a problem with build fixes. It's not like we're adding
>>> language features. If it makes someone's life easier, then what's the harm?
>>
>> It's extra work with no volunteer doing it.
>
>
Am 01.04.2011 17:03, schrieb Barry Warsaw:
> I think there's no harm in build system or doc fixes that will have
> no effect on functionality.
I do believe that the build system changes can actually break things.
The first version of your patch produced additional output on stderr,
which may caus
On 4/1/2011 3:52 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>> And I don't see a problem with build fixes. It's not like we're adding
>> language features. If it makes someone's life easier, then what's the harm?
>
> It's extra work with no volunteer doing it.
I understood Barry was volunteering. Certainly if
> And I don't see a problem with build fixes. It's not like we're adding
> language features. If it makes someone's life easier, then what's the harm?
It's extra work with no volunteer doing it.
Regards,
Martin
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@pyt
> I understood. I was suggesting we modify to allow doc changes that fix
> errors and push updated docs *online* (not do fresh releases) and asking
> why not do that (other than policy)?
It's too much effort in the release process. I don't actually remember
anymore how to do 2.5 documentation rele
> I wouldn't say doc fixes are not acceptable, but they are rather pointless
> since there won't be any more online docs or released docs for those versions.
That's the reason I don't want to see the in the tree, though - if
people commit something, they expect to see it released at some point.
S
> FWIW - I maintain legacy code for python2.4, and 2.5 (mainly 2.5).
[...]
> As a result, I'm very much +1 on integrating this patch to previous
> versions.
Updating 2.4 is clearly out of question; and I veto changing 2.5 in
that respect.
> I develop on Ubuntu (and will probably update to 11.04 i
On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 2:31 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 17:39:59 +0200
> Georg Brandl wrote:
>> Am 01.04.2011 14:49, schrieb Antoine Pitrou:
>> > Well, I think the tradeoff is simply: do you want to do more work?
>> > (or, given the same amount of work, do you think allocating
On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 17:39:59 +0200
Georg Brandl wrote:
> Am 01.04.2011 14:49, schrieb Antoine Pitrou:
> > On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 13:37:42 +0100
> > Michael Foord wrote:
> >> > I think I was unclear: I'm not advocating doing doc fixes in
> >> > security-only
> >> > branches; I'm just explaining why
On Fri, 1 Apr 2011 11:17:27 -0400
Barry Warsaw wrote:
>
> Yeah, I know what I said before but I really am still on the fence about
> non-behavior changing fixes. Both sides have valid positions, IMO. :/
Well, how can you be sure it's non-behaviour changing? A bugfix can
always introduce a regre
On 4/1/2011 9:45 AM, Michael Foord wrote:
See thread starting at
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-August/103263.html
As far as I can tell there was no clear decision there either. :-)
I read it as deciding no doc fixes.
(Other than no *need* to bother, which doesn't answer t
Am 01.04.2011 14:49, schrieb Antoine Pitrou:
> On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 13:37:42 +0100
> Michael Foord wrote:
>> > I think I was unclear: I'm not advocating doing doc fixes in security-only
>> > branches; I'm just explaining why it wouldn't even make sense to do these
>> > fixes.
>> >
>> I understood.
On Apr 01, 2011, at 03:07 PM, Michael Foord wrote:
>That was about whether the release manager should backport doc fixes from 2.7
>to the 2.6 branch and the conclusion was "not to bother", which is very
>different from saying that individual developers *can't* apply doc fixes if
>*they want*.
>
>O
On Apr 01, 2011, at 02:07 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>(and, no, I don't think building an old Python on a new Debian/Ubuntu
>system is anymore important than other kinds of bug or build fixes;
>let's stop implying that Ubuntu is the dominant OS out there, because
>it's really not)
For the record,
On 01/04/2011 14:49, Éric Araujo wrote:
As far as I can tell there was no clear decision there either. :-)
Not my understanding:
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-August/103351.html
That was about whether the release manager should backport doc fixes
from 2.7 to the 2.6 branch
> As far as I can tell there was no clear decision there either. :-)
Not my understanding:
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-August/103351.html
Regards
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listin
On 01/04/2011 13:42, Éric Araujo wrote:
I don't see any advantage in leaving erroneous docs online even if we
aren't going to do any new releases.
See thread starting at
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-August/103263.html
As far as I can tell there was no clear decision there eit
On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 13:37:42 +0100
Michael Foord wrote:
> > I think I was unclear: I'm not advocating doing doc fixes in security-only
> > branches; I'm just explaining why it wouldn't even make sense to do these
> > fixes.
> >
> I understood. I was suggesting we modify to allow doc changes that f
> I don't see any advantage in leaving erroneous docs online even if we
> aren't going to do any new releases.
See thread starting at
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-August/103263.html
Regards
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@pyt
On 01/04/2011 13:32, Georg Brandl wrote:
Am 01.04.2011 13:57, schrieb Michael Foord:
On 01/04/2011 11:46, Georg Brandl wrote:
Am 31.03.2011 19:35, schrieb Éric Araujo:
I would like to apply this patch (or its moral equivalent) to all active,
affected branches of Python, meaning 2.5 through 2.7
Am 01.04.2011 13:57, schrieb Michael Foord:
> On 01/04/2011 11:46, Georg Brandl wrote:
>> Am 31.03.2011 19:35, schrieb Éric Araujo:
I would like to apply this patch (or its moral equivalent) to all active,
affected branches of Python, meaning 2.5 through 2.7, and 3.1 through
3..3, a
On 01/04/2011 13:07, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 07:57:53 -0400
Eric Smith wrote:
On 4/1/2011 6:46 AM, Georg Brandl wrote:
Am 31.03.2011 19:35, schrieb Éric Araujo:
I would like to apply this patch (or its moral equivalent) to all active,
affected branches of Python, meaning 2.5
On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 07:57:53 -0400
Eric Smith wrote:
> On 4/1/2011 6:46 AM, Georg Brandl wrote:
> > Am 31.03.2011 19:35, schrieb Éric Araujo:
> >>> I would like to apply this patch (or its moral equivalent) to all active,
> >>> affected branches of Python, meaning 2.5 through 2.7, and 3.1 through
On 4/1/2011 6:46 AM, Georg Brandl wrote:
> Am 31.03.2011 19:35, schrieb Éric Araujo:
>>> I would like to apply this patch (or its moral equivalent) to all active,
>>> affected branches of Python, meaning 2.5 through 2.7, and 3.1 through 3.3,
>>> as
>>> soon as possible. Without this, it will be v
On 01/04/2011 11:46, Georg Brandl wrote:
Am 31.03.2011 19:35, schrieb Éric Araujo:
I would like to apply this patch (or its moral equivalent) to all active,
affected branches of Python, meaning 2.5 through 2.7, and 3.1 through 3.3, as
soon as possible. Without this, it will be very difficult fo
Am 31.03.2011 19:35, schrieb Éric Araujo:
>> I would like to apply this patch (or its moral equivalent) to all active,
>> affected branches of Python, meaning 2.5 through 2.7, and 3.1 through 3.3, as
>> soon as possible. Without this, it will be very difficult for anyone on
>> future Ubuntu or Deb
On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 08:37 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 3:35 AM, Éric Araujo wrote:
> > If I understand the policy correctly, 2.5 and 2.6 are not considered
> > active branches, so any doc, build or bug fixes are not acceptable.
>
> Actual build fixes may be acceptable, if
On Apr 01, 2011, at 08:37 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 3:35 AM, Éric Araujo wrote:
>> If I understand the policy correctly, 2.5 and 2.6 are not considered
>> active branches, so any doc, build or bug fixes are not acceptable.
>
>Actual build fixes may be acceptable, if they're
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 3:35 AM, Éric Araujo wrote:
> If I understand the policy correctly, 2.5 and 2.6 are not considered
> active branches, so any doc, build or bug fixes are not acceptable.
Actual build fixes may be acceptable, if they're needed to allow
people to build from a version control c
> I would like to apply this patch (or its moral equivalent) to all active,
> affected branches of Python, meaning 2.5 through 2.7, and 3.1 through 3.3, as
> soon as possible. Without this, it will be very difficult for anyone on
> future Ubuntu or Debian releases to build Python. Since it's not
Ubuntu 11.04 added support for multiarch libraries:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MultiarchSpec
http://wiki.debian.org/ReleaseGoals/MultiArch
At the moment, I don't care about issue 1294959 which I think addresses
building multiarch flavors of Python:
http://bugs.python.org/issue1294959
I have a much
38 matches
Mail list logo
