jtaylor.debian at googlemail.com
Sun May 12 11:08:26 UTC 2013
On 16.04.2013 17:01, Andrii Senkovych wrote:
> 2013/4/16 Joe Healy <joehealy at gmail.com>:
>> On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 10:25 PM, Andrii Senkovych
>> <jolly_roger at itblog.org.ua> wrote:
>>> For the time being we can create a separate support branch for pyzmq3
>>> and target it for experimental until the library itself and updated
>>> python bindings appear in unstable.
>> I don't understand what you mean here.
>> Does this mean a fork/branch of pyzmq called pyzmq3 maintained by us
>> that depends on libzmq3?
> As I said, there are reasons why libzmq3 cannot enter unstable. But
> this doesn't mean we cannot package salt for experimental branch. So,
> what really I meant is a separate branch in our salt repository. That
> branch will include modified files to build salt against pyzmq3 and
> other necessary dependencies. But since these packages only available
> in experimental, resulting salt .dsc file should be targeted into
> Debian's experimental branch (by explicitly setting this in
> The only dependency we miss here is the python-zmq. I'd like to ask
> Julian Taylor [cc'ed] if he could build python-zmq against libzmq3 for
I started to look at pyzmq based on zmq3.
I would like to also add pypy support. The easiest way to do this
without bloating the debian/rules is to use the new pybuild build helper.
Unfortunately the way pybuild is packaged now and probably also in
future will make backporting of it very hard to impossible (at least in
derivatives like Ubuntu with much stricter backporting rules).
Do you have any backporting plans regarding pyzmq3?
For my purposes zeromq2 is sufficient, so I have no plans.
But if you want to do it its possibly better I do a traditional
dh_python2 upload first and later update to pybuild with pypy support.
More information about the pkg-salt-team