Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #13225
| From | Martin <debacle@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.debian.maint.python |
| Subject | Re: Python package situation |
| Date | 2021-02-16 23:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <BJgRj-BG-11@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <BHoJk-6G2-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <BHulH-1CA-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <BJ4Gu-1w5-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <BJfse-7SD-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <BJfVg-8iG-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On 2021-02-17 02:13, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > Are you asking about testing or stable? Because for stable the "packages > are either outdated or do not exist" situation is somewhat expected and > testing is not that interesting case, though even in testing we may have a > lot of outdated packages. At work, we are using stable with backports. Once in a while we make a local package or local backport, too, and put it in our local (reprepro driven) repo. Very often, we can just accept the version in Debian, even if it is not the latest one. > Surely you use only a subset of modules while other people may need a > different subset, and ability to make and upload new or updated packages, > unavailable for most Debian Python users, is definitely helpful. Yes, having upload rights to Debian, incl. backports, is very helpful and I was not implying that it were the same situation for those without that priviledge :-) But at least people on this ML either have that possibility or know how to file RFPs/ITPs or just ask the right people. But that option is less attractive, if the work is far too much, i.e. either too many packages involved or very tricky packages - for technical or other reasons. That's why I'm curious: Maybe the missing packages are the same for multiple people and we can solve the problem?
Back to linux.debian.maint.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye Elana Hashman <ehashman@debian.org> - 2021-02-11 19:20 +0100
Re: upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye Stefano Rivera <stefanor@debian.org> - 2021-02-11 19:30 +0100
Re: upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye Stefano Rivera <stefanor@debian.org> - 2021-02-16 05:30 +0100
Re: upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> - 2021-02-16 17:30 +0100
Re: upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> - 2021-02-12 01:20 +0100
Re: upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye stefanor@debian.org - 2021-02-12 01:50 +0100
Re: upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> - 2021-02-12 09:20 +0100
Re: upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org> - 2021-02-12 09:40 +0100
Re: upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> - 2021-02-12 10:20 +0100
Re: upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye Martin <debacle@debian.org> - 2021-02-12 11:30 +0100
Re: upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye Christian Kastner <ckk@debian.org> - 2021-02-12 13:20 +0100
Re: upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye Julien Palard <julien@palard.fr> - 2021-02-12 14:10 +0100
Re: upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye Matthias Klose <doko@debian.org> - 2021-02-12 17:40 +0100
Re: upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> - 2021-02-13 23:10 +0100
Re: upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye Stefano Rivera <stefanor@debian.org> - 2021-02-12 21:20 +0100
Re: upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye Stefano Rivera <stefanor@debian.org> - 2021-02-12 21:00 +0100
Re: upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye Michael Kesper <mkesper@schokokeks.org> - 2021-02-12 21:50 +0100
Re: upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye Tristan Seligmann <mithrandi@mithrandi.net> - 2021-02-12 10:30 +0100
Re: upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye Valentin Vidic <vvidic@debian.org> - 2021-02-12 10:50 +0100
Re: upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye Jonathan Carter <jcc@debian.org> - 2021-02-12 11:40 +0100
Re: upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye Valentin Vidic <vvidic@debian.org> - 2021-02-12 12:10 +0100
Re: upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2021-02-12 15:20 +0100
Re: upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye Andrius Merkys <merkys@debian.org> - 2021-02-12 17:00 +0100
Re: upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye Valentin Vidic <vvidic@debian.org> - 2021-02-12 17:20 +0100
Re: upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye Michael Kesper <mkesper@schokokeks.org> - 2021-02-12 11:00 +0100
Re: upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye Jeremy Stanley <fungi@yuggoth.org> - 2021-02-12 18:00 +0100
Re: upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye Bastian Venthur <venthur@debian.org> - 2021-02-16 10:20 +0100
Re: upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye Stefano Rivera <stefanor@debian.org> - 2021-02-16 19:30 +0100
Re: upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye Jeremy Stanley <fungi@yuggoth.org> - 2021-02-16 20:20 +0100
Python package situation Martin <debacle@debian.org> - 2021-02-16 21:50 +0100
Re: Python package situation Andrey Rahmatullin <wrar@debian.org> - 2021-02-16 22:20 +0100
Re: Python package situation Martin <debacle@debian.org> - 2021-02-16 23:20 +0100
Re: Python package situation Brian May <bam@debian.org> - 2021-02-17 02:10 +0100
Re: Python package situation Andrey Rahmatullin <wrar@debian.org> - 2021-02-17 08:00 +0100
Re: Python package situation Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org> - 2021-02-17 10:30 +0100
csiph-web