Package Details: lib32-python2 2.7.18-4

Git Clone URL: https://aur.archlinux.org/lib32-python2.git (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: lib32-python2
Description: A high-level scripting language (32 bit)
Upstream URL: https://www.python.org/
Keywords: python2
Licenses: PSF
Conflicts: lib32-python
Submitter: ImNtReal
Maintainer: None
Last Packager: libele
Votes: 38
Popularity: 0.000000
First Submitted: 2012-12-14 19:36 (UTC)
Last Updated: 2022-12-22 05:53 (UTC)

Latest Comments

1 2 3 Next › Last »

rafaelff commented on 2019-01-12 12:44 (UTC)

I'm disowning this package because I maintained due to lib32-smbclient, which I just disowned.

rafaelff commented on 2018-08-15 23:05 (UTC)

I updated to 2.7.15. I notice a few error messages, although I don't know how it affects the use of this package. Feedbacks are welcome.

whynothugo commented on 2016-12-25 12:25 (UTC) (edited on 2016-12-25 12:26 (UTC) by whynothugo)

I've made python2 an optional dependency, since it's not even required all the time. First-time users that don't use [testing] but use AUR AND need to build something that depends on its sources will have to manually build an older version. This should make the PKGBUILD work for almost every case out there. Other will have to hand edit it. Note that AUR is even less supported that [testing], so there's really no reason to use the former but avoide the latter.

GordonGR commented on 2016-12-25 11:55 (UTC)

And what if they are installing it now for the first time? I say people with [testing] could maintain a local copy themselves. Anyway, I'm not pursuing a flame here, just stating my opinion.

whynothugo commented on 2016-12-23 15:23 (UTC)

That should be a non-issue, actually. Users that don't have [testing] enabled won't get the update for this package until python 2.7.13 hits stable. In the meantime, the previously installed version will work for them.

GordonGR commented on 2016-12-23 14:19 (UTC)

I agree with Rafael. Since only a small percentage of people use [testing], I don't think it is a good idea to assume everyone does. If I were you, hobarrera, I would simply downgrade.

whynothugo commented on 2016-12-23 14:01 (UTC)

I'm thinking the best compromise might be to unpin the required python2 version (we can revert it if there are any objections).

rafaelff commented on 2016-12-23 13:48 (UTC)

@hobarrera: well, the non-lib32 may provide some files that are needed for some depedencies. For example, I experienced some packages that would build only if its depedencies' headers (files in /usr/include) are available; therefore, both lib32 and non-lib32 dependencies had to be installed. I don't know if that's the case of lib32-python2.

whynothugo commented on 2016-12-23 13:17 (UTC)

@rafaelff: Oh, thanks, I'll keep that in mind. I'm wondering though, why *does* this package depend on python2?

rafaelff commented on 2016-12-23 13:12 (UTC) (edited on 2016-12-23 13:44 (UTC) by rafaelff)

@hobarrera: You updated this package requiring python2 version equal or higher than 2.7.13, which is currently version of python in [testing] repository. Since some users don't use such repository, please consider avoid updating to the version available only in there. Because of that, all packages that depend on this package will be put on hold.. anyway, thanks for adopting and maintaining it.

1 2 3 Next › Last »