On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 06:52:06PM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote: > * Matthias Klose [Tue, 03 May 2005 13:41:11 +0200]: > > On #irc I got the propsal to do another python2.3 upload to document, > > that the dbm module is missing (was part of woody, cannot be built > > anymore in sarge). The anydbm module should be used as a replacement. > > Should this be documented in the python2.3 package, or is a notice in > > the release note preferable? Same for the python-profiler package > > moved to non-free. > Rob Bradford, who is in charge of the release notes, tells me that > this stuff is perfectly suitable for them, and encourages us to write > a short paragraph with an explanation and the bug number for each > issue. (And I'd put put that in the README.Debian too.) > Matthias, what about this?: > Module 'dbm' not present in the default Python version: The > python2.2 and python2.3 packages shipped with Sarge don't include > the standard module 'dbm', which was present in the default Python > version in Woody, python2.1. The 'anydbm' module should be used as a > replacement, see bugs #197871 and #197875 for details. Also note > that both python2.1 and python2.4 in Sarge do include the module. > Modules 'profile' and 'pstats' moved to non-free: None of the > python2.X packages shipped with Sarge include the standard modules > 'profile' and 'pstats', because they are licensed under a non-free > license (see bug #293932 for details). These two modules can be > found in the python2.X-profiler packages that are included in the > non-free section of the Debian archive. If there's agreement about this text (looks fine to me), will you forward it to Rob? Thanks, -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature