On Sat, Jul 29, 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Actually, I didn't make those packaging mistakes; the previous
maintainer did.
« The previous maintainer did the mistakes is the refrain of people
who don't want to fix their packages. » :-P
You seem to think this is a battle, in which
On Sat, Jul 29, 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
So what? If you know how to fix that issue, then why don't you upload a
package based on Pierre's work with the fix? Why don't you do it RIGHT
NOW and get DONE with this madness?
I don't know a fix for that issue except to use Guile 1.8.
Le dim 30 juillet 2006 07:21, Thomas Bushnell BSG a écrit :
No, it requires *both* the newer Python
pure speculation, upstream *AND* users on the list, claim it works
with python2.3. so stop with that, it's tiresome.
*and* the newer Guile.
In another mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], you said:
Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Jul 29, 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
So what? If you know how to fix that issue, then why don't you upload a
package based on Pierre's work with the fix? Why don't you do it RIGHT
NOW and get DONE with this madness?
I don't know a fix for
Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
When this thread started, you had decided to bind the fix with the new
upstream release and you had blocked the new upstream release with the
switch of the default Python version. Now you're also blocking this
new upstream release with a major new
Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Le dim 30 juillet 2006 07:21, Thomas Bushnell BSG a écrit :
No, it requires *both* the newer Python
pure speculation, upstream *AND* users on the list, claim it works
with python2.3. so stop with that, it's tiresome.
This is incorrect.
Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I wrote the default python version, and I maintain that my original
fix would work with the new upstream release.
Your original fix would not succesfully apply as a patch to the new
upstream version. It's also, as it happens, the *wrong* way to make
the
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Le jeudi 27 juillet 2006 à 16:38 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG a écrit :
Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
it seems that guile 1.6.8 is buggy. people reported to have build
lilypond with guile 1.6.7 and/or guile-1.8 correctly. And I
Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is the stupidiest thing you ever did, because everyone had to look
at your handling of your packages. Everybody saw your gcc-4.1 RC with
a patch which you're blocking until the new upstream release.
Everybody saw the awful packaging mistakes you
Le jeudi 27 juillet 2006 à 16:38 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG a écrit :
Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
it seems that guile 1.6.8 is buggy. people reported to have build
lilypond with guile 1.6.7 and/or guile-1.8 correctly. And I suppose
*HERE* is the real problem, which you
On Thu, Jul 27, 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
I believe the patch you sent was not against the current upstream
I am not the lilypond maintainer, I don't want to have to download an
upstream tarball or prepare a CVS snapshot or whatever for a package
I'm not interested in. The
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
It is very confusing to me why lilypond should need either
python-support or python-central at all. Can you explain?
Actually, it doesn't, I was wrong. I thought some sort of private or
public module was built, but the only bits seem to live
Le jeu 27 juillet 2006 05:02, Thomas Bushnell BSG a écrit :
Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What is this, solution number 4 for Mr. BSG's complaints? I am
almost beginning to believe that he is more interested in
complaining than just fixing the problem.
Solution? How about this,
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
I believe the patch you sent was not against the current upstream
release, unless you are referring to something different.
I am not the lilypond maintainer, I don't want to have to download an
upstream tarball or prepare a CVS snapshot or
Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
it seems that guile 1.6.8 is buggy. people reported to have build
lilypond with guile 1.6.7 and/or guile-1.8 correctly. And I suppose
*HERE* is the real problem, which you failed to spot, because you
didn't even TRIED to. I had that problem 1
Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
I believe the patch you sent was not against the current upstream
release, unless you are referring to something different.
I am not the lilypond maintainer, I don't want to have to download an
upstream
Le mer 26 juillet 2006 03:19, Thomas Bushnell BSG a écrit :
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Running sed costs you lots of time? Come on. I can understand your
irritation at the lack of information about how the python
transition is going, but it really shouldn't take you any
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
You could just add an explicit dependency on python2.4 and do a
s/python/python2.4/ over lilypond.
For which I've sent a patch already.
--
Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
Le mer 26 juillet 2006 08:41, Thomas Bushnell BSG a écrit :
Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It takes about eight hours per compilation attempt on my available
hardware running unstable.
oh, and you really need to watch all the lines of the compilation
during the build ?
On Tue, Jul 25, 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Some have suggested patching lilypond to call python2.4, depending on
python2.4, and not bothering with python-central and pyversions and
such.
No, this is still required, but I didn't want to force a choice between
python-support or
Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jul 25, 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Some have suggested patching lilypond to call python2.4, depending on
python2.4, and not bothering with python-central and pyversions and
such.
No, this is still required, but I didn't want to force a
Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
You could just add an explicit dependency on python2.4 and do a
s/python/python2.4/ over lilypond.
For which I've sent a patch already.
I believe the patch you sent was not against the current upstream
On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 07:25:59PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Adeodato Simó [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- From http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/07/msg00684.html:
But I don't alas, have the time to spend on a workaround patch myself,
which will (supposedly) become
This one time, at band camp, Wouter Verhelst said:
On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 07:25:59PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
This is incorrect; I write and read very quickly.
Oh, come on.
sed -i -e '1s/python[0-9\.]*/python2.4/' $(find . -name '*.py')
Don't tell me it takes you more than
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Oh, come on.
sed -i -e '1s/python[0-9\.]*/python2.4/' $(find . -name '*.py')
Don't tell me it takes you more than half a minute to come up with
something like that. And don't tell me you can write a mail such as the
one I'm replying to in less than
Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What is this, solution number 4 for Mr. BSG's complaints? I am almost
beginning to believe that he is more interested in complaining than just
fixing the problem.
Solution? How about this, if I apply that recipe and try to compile,
you pay me $100
Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What is this, solution number 4 for Mr. BSG's complaints? I am almost
beginning to believe that he is more interested in complaining than just
fixing the problem.
And the gratuitous rudeness is apalling.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This would only fix problems in experimental, lilypond is currently not
releasable, so imaginating that the Python switch would not happen, we
would end up without lilypond.
In my opinion, the current lilypond in Debian is not suitable for
release,
Em Tue, 25 Jul 2006 01:56:26 -0700
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] escreveu:
In my opinion, the current lilypond in Debian is not suitable for
release, even with the existing problems solved. It would not be
appropriate to release such an old version in etch, and if nothing
happens
On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 01:56:26AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This would only fix problems in experimental, lilypond is currently not
releasable, so imaginating that the Python switch would not happen, we
would end up without lilypond.
In
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 01:56:26AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
In my opinion, the current lilypond in Debian is not suitable for
release, even with the existing problems solved. It would not be
appropriate to release such an old version in etch, and if nothing
happens with python
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Have you told the maintainers of alml and songwrite (reverse-depends of
lilypond) about this? It wouldn't be fair to them to find out at the last
minute before the etch release that their packages won't be releasable
because lilypond wasn't ready,
Gustavo Noronha Silva [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That said, I would also like to see python-defaults upgraded to
python2.4, and can't see a reason for much more delay.
Don't bother asking; they don't answer questions.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
Aurélien GÉRÔME [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is utterly unacceptable. What do you do of the
reverse-dependencies? If you are not capable of dealing with a package
that you are supposed to maintain, you should O: it or RFA: it, instead
of cornering users. That is irresponsible as a Debian
2.6.3 was not acceptible.
You could just add an explicit dependency on python2.4 and do a
s/python/python2.4/ over lilypond.
--
Martin Michlmayr
http://www.cyrius.com/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You could just add an explicit dependency on python2.4 and do a
s/python/python2.4/ over lilypond.
So, will the python change happen?
Maybe instead of beating me up for not knowing what is the best use of
my time, the python team could be encouraged
Le mer 26 juillet 2006 01:22, Thomas Bushnell BSG a écrit :
Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You could just add an explicit dependency on python2.4 and do a
s/python/python2.4/ over lilypond.
So, will the python change happen?
Maybe instead of beating me up for not knowing what
-Version through pycentral)
ask for a 2.4+ python version.
As I have said multiple times, lilypond now requires python 2.4 to
work correctly.
You're telling me that if I use debian/pyversions and the rest of
that, whatever it is, then lilypond scripts and user code which
depends on python 2.4
(either
through debian/pyversions + pysupport or XS-Python-Version through
pycentral) ask for a 2.4+ python version.
As I have said multiple times, lilypond now requires python 2.4 to
work correctly.
You're telling me that if I use debian/pyversions and the rest of
that, whatever
Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
it has been said numerous time, that you just need to sed the shebang of
those scripts, such modifications are often used in python packaging,
and is easy to do.
Right, the question is whether this is a long-term change or a
short-term change?
Em Tue, 25 Jul 2006 16:53:47 -0700
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] escreveu:
As I have said multiple times, lilypond now requires python 2.4 to
work correctly.
You're telling me that if I use debian/pyversions and the rest of
that, whatever it is, then lilypond scripts and user code
Gustavo Noronha Silva [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You're telling me that if I use debian/pyversions and the rest of
that, whatever it is, then lilypond scripts and user code which
depends on python 2.4 will automagically get it even though it uses #!
on ordinary python? This sounds like it's
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think you understand. A workaround costs me lots of time to
get in place. I'm perfectly clear about how to go about installing a
workaround. The question is, is the work worth it?
Running sed costs you lots of time? Come on. I can
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Running sed costs you lots of time? Come on. I can understand your
irritation at the lack of information about how the python transition is
going, but it really shouldn't take you any length of time at all to
change things to reference 2.4
* Matthew Garrett [Wed, 26 Jul 2006 02:14:51 +0100]:
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think you understand. A workaround costs me lots of time to
get in place. I'm perfectly clear about how to go about installing a
workaround. The question is, is the work worth it?
Adeodato Simó [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- From http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/07/msg00684.html:
But I don't alas, have the time to spend on a workaround patch myself,
which will (supposedly) become obselete very quickly.
The sad conclusion that, with this sentence
Adeodato Simó [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am completely serious: all of the mails quoted below stress me
profoundly
Have you tried decaf...?
-Miles
--
We have met the enemy, and he is us. -- Pogo
Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- make install is called with prefix=debian/tmp/..., this is usually
wrong
Well, some packages screw things up of course, but in a package
following the GNU coding standards (whence prefix comes) the Makefile
is supposed to separate install-time actions
Hi again,
On Fri, Jul 21, 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Unfortunately, the patch is not against the new upstream lilypond.
As I suggested in #357057, I suggest you copy the sed snippet and go on
with the Python transition with a 2.4 build requirement. This will
work even after
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Matthias Klose [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
experimental has a python-defaults pointing to 2.4
When did this happen? Is there some reason you didn't reply to my
status-requests with this information? Why are you trying to keep
things secret
On Tue, Jul 18, 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
So, let me make plain: I am entirely happy to accept a workaround
patch for lilypond's current upstream stable release that will make it
build and use python 2.4 even when that is not installed as python.
If such a functional patch appears and
Matthias Klose [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
well, there's curently only one person spreading lies and fud about
python packaging, so please don't talk about lies as well. I'm still
testing uprades and fixing upgrade issues. experimental has a
python-defaults pointing to 2.4, so you can prepare
Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jul 18, 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
So, let me make plain: I am entirely happy to accept a workaround
patch for lilypond's current upstream stable release that will make it
build and use python 2.4 even when that is not installed as python.
Matthias Klose [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
experimental has a python-defaults pointing to 2.4
When did this happen? Is there some reason you didn't reply to my
status-requests with this information? Why are you trying to keep
things secret from me?
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
Hi Matthias,
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006, Matthias Klose wrote:
well, there's curently only one person spreading lies and fud about
python packaging, so please don't talk about lies as well.
Please stop ranting against Josselin, in particular if you have nothing
precise/factual to criticize. You're
Le mardi 18 juillet 2006 à 15:12 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG a écrit :
I had been assuming that the python team was telling me the truth when
they said that python-defaults would be updated to 2.4 very soon.
Please, there is nothing like a python team.
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette
. pending doesn't imply will be fixed in x
days.
Matthias
Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
I have been criticized for not uploading the new lilypond packages and
being quite a bit behind the public releases. Unfortunately, the
current lilypond requires python 2.4, and expects to call it as
python
I have been criticized for not uploading the new lilypond packages and
being quite a bit behind the public releases. Unfortunately, the
current lilypond requires python 2.4, and expects to call it as
python, not just in the build process, but at run time.
I had been assuming that the python
58 matches
Mail list logo
