On Tue, 2001-11-20 at 21:24, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Joel Rosdahl <joel@debian.org> writes:
>
>
> > Sounds like you guys could use a python1.5 version of mxdatetime,
> > then...
the ones without egenix in the name? too old.
> > I'm willing to maintain such a package, but the best solution is maybe
> > that one of you creates a separate python1.5 mxdatetime package as you
> > like and also maintains it?
i can maintain the egenix stuff if you like (after all i wrote the
original patches to build egenix 2.0.2) but splitting the package is,
imo, a bad thing. it should be maintaned by a signle developer (doesn't
matter who.)
> It's too bad that we still have to support 1.5, which came out more
> that 1 year and a half ago.
agreed.
> They could help us in making efforts for switching to 2.1, so we
> can avoid such bloat.
agreed again. list all the packages that need to be ported to 2.1 and
lets start working. only after *all* packages get ported we can remove
python1.5 and all dependents packages.
ready to help,
federico
--
Federico Di Gregorio
Debian GNU/Linux Developer & Italian Press Contact fog@debian.org
INIT.D Developer fog@initd.org
Don't dream it. Be it. -- Dr. Frank'n'further
Attachment:
pgpjKHa4ZfIC3.pgp
Description: PGP signature