On Friday, 28 June 2019 08.56.14 WEST Kornel Benko wrote:
> Done at 2a37ad9c.
>
> Kornel
Thank you to both. :-)
--
José Abílio
Am Freitag, 28. Juni 2019, 00:11:47 CEST schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes:
> Le 26/06/2019 à 15:56, José Abílio Matos a écrit :
> > There are three places to change:
> >
> > * os::python23 function in support;
> > * autotools support;
> > * cmake;
> >
> > We should be simply a matter of replacing
Le 26/06/2019 à 15:56, José Abílio Matos a écrit :
There are three places to change:
* os::python23 function in support;
* autotools support;
* cmake;
We should be simply a matter of replacing 3.3 by 3.5.
I did the two first ones, I let Kornel do cmake.
JMarc
Am Donnerstag, 27. Juni 2019, 14:56:05 CEST schrieb Stephan Witt:
> Am 27.06.2019 um 09:03 schrieb Kornel Benko :
> >
> > Am Mittwoch, 26. Juni 2019, 17:45:28 CEST schrieb Stephan Witt:
> >> Am 26.06.2019 um 14:08 schrieb Kornel Benko :
> >>>
> >>> Am Mittwoch, 26. Juni 2019, 13:21:25 CEST
Am 27.06.2019 um 09:03 schrieb Kornel Benko :
>
> Am Mittwoch, 26. Juni 2019, 17:45:28 CEST schrieb Stephan Witt:
>> Am 26.06.2019 um 14:08 schrieb Kornel Benko :
>>>
>>> Am Mittwoch, 26. Juni 2019, 13:21:25 CEST schrieb Stephan Witt:
> I’m not surprised at these explanation.
>
>
Am Mittwoch, 26. Juni 2019, 17:45:28 CEST schrieb Stephan Witt:
> Am 26.06.2019 um 14:08 schrieb Kornel Benko :
> >
> > Am Mittwoch, 26. Juni 2019, 13:21:25 CEST schrieb Stephan Witt:
> >>> I’m not surprised at these explanation.
> >>>
> >>> The real world scenario would be to disable python 3.4
Am 26.06.2019 um 14:08 schrieb Kornel Benko :
>
> Am Mittwoch, 26. Juni 2019, 13:21:25 CEST schrieb Stephan Witt:
>>> I’m not surprised at these explanation.
>>>
>>> The real world scenario would be to disable python 3.4 on my system
>>> and test it with 2.7.15 - this works for me.
>>>
>>> But
On Wednesday, 26 June 2019 13.08.37 WEST Kornel Benko wrote:
> The patch (and the original) omits to work with python2.7?
> I have not seen problems (cmake build allows 2.7 version)
>
> My versions are 2.7.12 and 3.5.2.
>
> Kornel
They should I have tested them with 2.7 (.16 in my
On Wednesday, 26 June 2019 11.40.07 WEST Stephan Witt wrote:
> Hi José,
>
> I’m not surprised at these explanation.
>
> The real world scenario would be to disable python 3.4 on my system
> and test it with 2.7.15 - this works for me.
That is what I am proposing. :-)
> But - if it’s clear LyX
Am Mittwoch, 26. Juni 2019, 13:21:25 CEST schrieb Stephan Witt:
> > I’m not surprised at these explanation.
> >
> > The real world scenario would be to disable python 3.4 on my system
> > and test it with 2.7.15 - this works for me.
> >
> > But - if it’s clear LyX doesn’t work with python 3.4 why
Am 26.06.2019 um 12:40 schrieb Stephan Witt :
>
> Am 26.06.2019 um 10:46 schrieb José Abílio Matos :
>>
>> On Tuesday, 25 June 2019 19.17.13 WEST Stephan Witt wrote:
>>> +checking list of modules...
>>> /Users/stephan/git/lyx-build/LyX-2.4.0dev.app/Contents/Resources/layouts/fix
>>> me.module
Am 26.06.2019 um 10:46 schrieb José Abílio Matos :
>
> On Tuesday, 25 June 2019 19.17.13 WEST Stephan Witt wrote:
>> +checking list of modules...
>> /Users/stephan/git/lyx-build/LyX-2.4.0dev.app/Contents/Resources/layouts/fix
>> me.module Traceback (most recent call last):
>> File
>>
On Tuesday, 25 June 2019 19.17.13 WEST Stephan Witt wrote:
> +checking list of modules...
> /Users/stephan/git/lyx-build/LyX-2.4.0dev.app/Contents/Resources/layouts/fix
> me.module Traceback (most recent call last):
> File
>
> You are both right. :-)
>> Adding python in the last position will work, and is the right thing to do.
>> Please try then lyx from the command line using the -v option to see what is
>> the output. I would like to see if the python detection at run time is
>> working
&g
then lyx from the command line using the -v option to see what is
the output. I would like to see if the python detection at run time is working
on Mac.
I just noticed that this answer from José went directly to me.
Stephan, I add the 'python' to configure and you answer José request,
right
Le 17/06/2019 à 18:43, Stephan Witt a écrit :
Hi JMarc,
to answer my question myself: it’s the change d933d72fa9e.
There isn’t python2 nor python3 on a Mac. Wouldn’t it be an option to check for
python too?
Like the attached patch…
That is what I would do, but I was waiting for a directive
Hi JMarc,
to answer my question myself: it’s the change d933d72fa9e.
There isn’t python2 nor python3 on a Mac. Wouldn’t it be an option to check for
python too?
Like the attached patch…
Stephan
> Am 17.06.2019 um 17:09 schrieb Stephan Witt :
>
> Hi,
>
> I’ve tried to check out the latest
Hi,
I’ve tried to check out the latest changes on master.
Currently the build fails to find a proper python:
configuring LyX version 2.4.0dev
checking for build type... release
checking for version suffix... -[2.4
checking whether Qt5 is disabled... no
checking build system type...
Am 13.04.2013 um 03:09 schrieb Pavel Sanda sa...@lyx.org:
José Matos wrote:
So these are the facts. The question then is how do we want to proceed?
I thought we want to be 3.0 compatible and ditch 2.x series completely(?).
Otherwise it looks like just maintenace burden without profit.
Op 13-04-13 03:09, Pavel Sanda schreef:
José Matos wrote:
So these are the facts. The question then is how do we want to proceed?
I thought we want to be 3.0 compatible and ditch 2.x series completely(?).
Otherwise it looks like just maintenace burden without profit.
What's the status of
Stephan Witt wrote:
What's the status of python 3 on fedora/debian/suse?
On my Mac (latest version Mac OS X 10.8.3) the default is 2.7.2.
Default is not so important, important is 3.x availability, we have
mostly working selection mechanism thanks to Enrico.
Pavel
Pavel Sanda wrote:
Stephan Witt wrote:
What's the status of python 3 on fedora/debian/suse?
On my Mac (latest version Mac OS X 10.8.3) the default is 2.7.2.
Default is not so important, important is 3.x availability, we have
mostly working selection mechanism thanks to Enrico.
3.2.1 is
Georg Baum wrote:
3.2.1 is available in debian squeeze (the current stable version).
Wrong, it is 3.1.3, but does not matter.
Georg
On 2013-04-13, Georg Baum wrote:
Pavel Sanda wrote:
Stephan Witt wrote:
What's the status of python 3 on fedora/debian/suse?
On my Mac (latest version Mac OS X 10.8.3) the default is 2.7.2.
Default is not so important, important is 3.x availability, we have
mostly working selection
On Friday 12 April 2013 18:09:02 Pavel Sanda wrote:
I thought we want to be 3.0 compatible and ditch 2.x series completely(?).
Otherwise it looks like just maintenace burden without profit.
What's the status of python 3 on fedora/debian/suse?
Pavel
In the mean time it is possible to use
José Matos wrote:
In the mean time it is possible to use the features of python 2.7 that allow
an easy update to python 3.3.
I hope we already at least support python 2.7, cause what I see in changelogs,
Uwe already ships it in Win version :)
Note that even if we go python 3 we should set a
On 04/13/2013 02:09 PM, José Matos wrote:
On Friday 12 April 2013 18:09:02 Pavel Sanda wrote:
I thought we want to be 3.0 compatible and ditch 2.x series completely(?).
Otherwise it looks like just maintenace burden without profit.
What's the status of python 3 on fedora/debian/suse?
Pavel
On Saturday 13 April 2013 11:36:18 Pavel Sanda wrote:
José Matos wrote:
In the mean time it is possible to use the features of python 2.7 that
allow an easy update to python 3.3.
I hope we already at least support python 2.7, cause what I see in
changelogs, Uwe already ships it in Win
José Matos wrote:
Oh, BTW and then if we go with python 3.x we can call the next version lyx
3.0. :-D
Or we can already adopt the firefox convention and go with lyx-3.0 for new
release. :-)
195.113.26.193/~sanda/facepalm.jpg :D
On Saturday 13 April 2013 16:53:42 Richard Heck wrote:
Isn't there some import __future__ thing we can use to make this easy?
Or is that what is only in 2.7?
Richard
python 2.7 supports both from future import as well as new features that
were backported from python 3 (specifically
On Saturday 13 April 2013 16:37:55 Pavel Sanda wrote:
facepalm.jpg
By using a polar bear instead of a cat you have spoken to my heart. ;-)
Cheers,
--
José Abílio
Am 13.04.2013 um 03:09 schrieb Pavel Sanda :
> José Matos wrote:
>> So these are the facts. The question then is how do we want to proceed?
>
> I thought we want to be >3.0 compatible and ditch 2.x series completely(?).
> Otherwise it looks like just maintenace burden without
Op 13-04-13 03:09, Pavel Sanda schreef:
José Matos wrote:
So these are the facts. The question then is how do we want to proceed?
I thought we want to be >3.0 compatible and ditch 2.x series completely(?).
Otherwise it looks like just maintenace burden without profit.
What's the status of
Stephan Witt wrote:
> > What's the status of python 3 on fedora/debian/suse?
>
> On my Mac (latest version Mac OS X 10.8.3) the default is 2.7.2.
Default is not so important, important is 3.x availability, we have
mostly working selection mechanism thanks to Enrico.
Pavel
Pavel Sanda wrote:
> Stephan Witt wrote:
>> > What's the status of python 3 on fedora/debian/suse?
>>
>> On my Mac (latest version Mac OS X 10.8.3) the default is 2.7.2.
>
> Default is not so important, important is 3.x availability, we have
> mostly working selection mechanism thanks to
Georg Baum wrote:
> 3.2.1 is available in debian squeeze (the current stable version).
Wrong, it is 3.1.3, but does not matter.
Georg
On 2013-04-13, Georg Baum wrote:
> Pavel Sanda wrote:
>> Stephan Witt wrote:
>>> > What's the status of python 3 on fedora/debian/suse?
>>> On my Mac (latest version Mac OS X 10.8.3) the default is 2.7.2.
>> Default is not so important, important is 3.x availability, we have
>> mostly working
On Friday 12 April 2013 18:09:02 Pavel Sanda wrote:
> I thought we want to be >3.0 compatible and ditch 2.x series completely(?).
> Otherwise it looks like just maintenace burden without profit.
>
> What's the status of python 3 on fedora/debian/suse?
>
> Pavel
In the mean time it is possible
José Matos wrote:
> In the mean time it is possible to use the features of python 2.7 that allow
> an easy update to python 3.3.
I hope we already at least support python 2.7, cause what I see in changelogs,
Uwe already ships it in Win version :)
> Note that even if we go python 3 we should
On 04/13/2013 02:09 PM, José Matos wrote:
On Friday 12 April 2013 18:09:02 Pavel Sanda wrote:
I thought we want to be >3.0 compatible and ditch 2.x series completely(?).
Otherwise it looks like just maintenace burden without profit.
What's the status of python 3 on fedora/debian/suse?
Pavel
On Saturday 13 April 2013 11:36:18 Pavel Sanda wrote:
> José Matos wrote:
> > In the mean time it is possible to use the features of python 2.7 that
> > allow an easy update to python 3.3.
>
> I hope we already at least support python 2.7, cause what I see in
> changelogs, Uwe already ships it
José Matos wrote:
> Oh, BTW and then if we go with python 3.x we can call the next version lyx
> 3.0. :-D
> Or we can already adopt the firefox convention and go with lyx-3.0 for new
> release. :-)
195.113.26.193/~sanda/facepalm.jpg :D
On Saturday 13 April 2013 16:53:42 Richard Heck wrote:
> Isn't there some "import __future__" thing we can use to make this easy?
> Or is that what is only in 2.7?
>
> Richard
python 2.7 supports both "from future import " as well as new features that
were backported from python 3
On Saturday 13 April 2013 16:37:55 Pavel Sanda wrote:
> facepalm.jpg
By using a polar bear instead of a cat you have spoken to my heart. ;-)
Cheers,
--
José Abílio
On Thursday 11 April 2013 10:59:47 Pavel Sanda wrote:
I think that long term solution was rather to switch to Python 3.
But all such talk is cheap, we need patches
Pavel
The first step is to raise the supported python to version 2.7 and then the
transition will be easy. That was the whole
José Matos wrote:
Are we there at that point?
You are the pythonist here :)
P
On Friday 12 April 2013 12:35:57 Pavel Sanda wrote:
You are the pythonist here
P
:-)
The issue is what is the minimum version of python that we want to support. If
we decide to stay with python 2 as the default version the question then
becomes what is the minimum version we want to
José Matos wrote:
So these are the facts. The question then is how do we want to proceed?
I thought we want to be 3.0 compatible and ditch 2.x series completely(?).
Otherwise it looks like just maintenace burden without profit.
What's the status of python 3 on fedora/debian/suse?
Pavel
On Thursday 11 April 2013 10:59:47 Pavel Sanda wrote:
> I think that long term solution was rather to switch to Python 3.
> But all such talk is cheap, we need patches
> Pavel
The first step is to raise the supported python to version 2.7 and then the
transition will be easy. That was the whole
José Matos wrote:
> Are we there at that point?
You are the pythonist here :)
P
On Friday 12 April 2013 12:35:57 Pavel Sanda wrote:
> You are the pythonist here
> P
:-)
The issue is what is the minimum version of python that we want to support. If
we decide to stay with python 2 as the default version the question then
becomes what is the minimum version we want to
José Matos wrote:
> So these are the facts. The question then is how do we want to proceed?
I thought we want to be >3.0 compatible and ditch 2.x series completely(?).
Otherwise it looks like just maintenace burden without profit.
What's the status of python 3 on fedora/debian/suse?
Pavel
On 2013-04-11, Pavel Sanda wrote:
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 10:10:48AM -0700, Pavel Sanda wrote:
As a long-term project, I suggest making the Python scripts run with both,
Python 2.x and 3.x (with x some decent choice of not-too-old versions).
For simple modules, this
Guenter Milde wrote:
As a long-term project, I suggest making the Python scripts run with both,
Python 2.x and 3.x (with x some decent choice of not-too-old versions).
I think that long term solution was rather to switch to Python 3.
But all such talk is cheap, we need patches :)
Pavel
On 2013-04-11, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> Enrico Forestieri wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 10:10:48AM -0700, Pavel Sanda wrote:
As a long-term project, I suggest making the Python scripts run with both,
Python 2.x and 3.x (with x some decent choice of not-too-old versions).
For simple modules, this
Guenter Milde wrote:
> As a long-term project, I suggest making the Python scripts run with both,
> Python 2.x and 3.x (with x some decent choice of not-too-old versions).
I think that long term solution was rather to switch to Python 3.
But all such talk is cheap, we need patches :)
Pavel
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 10:10:48AM -0700, Pavel Sanda wrote:
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
2) Every time Systemcall::startscript() is called with a command starting
exactly as python -tt, the python string is replaced with the name
of the good python, e.g.,
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 10:10:48AM -0700, Pavel Sanda wrote:
>
> > Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > > 2) Every time Systemcall::startscript() is called with a command starting
> > >exactly as "python -tt", the "python" string is replaced with the name
> > >of the
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 09:44:49PM -0700, Pavel Sanda wrote:
Enrico,
what is the status of the python 2 detection you committed some time ago?
Is it just supposed to be fallback in order to avoid worst things or
is lyx supposed to work on systems with both 2.6 3.x pythons?
It is supposed
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
2) Every time Systemcall::startscript() is called with a command starting
exactly as python -tt, the python string is replaced with the name
of the good python, e.g., python -tt - python2.6.8 -tt.
Yep, but there are parts of code like preview machinery which run
On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 10:10:48AM -0700, Pavel Sanda wrote:
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
2) Every time Systemcall::startscript() is called with a command starting
exactly as python -tt, the python string is replaced with the name
of the good python, e.g., python -tt - python2.6.8 -tt.
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 09:44:49PM -0700, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> Enrico,
>
> what is the status of the python 2 detection you committed some time ago?
> Is it just supposed to be fallback in order to avoid worst things or
> is lyx supposed to work on systems with both 2.6 & 3.x pythons?
It is
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> 2) Every time Systemcall::startscript() is called with a command starting
>exactly as "python -tt", the "python" string is replaced with the name
>of the "good" python, e.g., "python -tt" -> "python2.6.8 -tt".
Yep, but there are parts of code like preview
On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 10:10:48AM -0700, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > 2) Every time Systemcall::startscript() is called with a command starting
> >exactly as "python -tt", the "python" string is replaced with the name
> >of the "good" python, e.g., "python -tt" ->
Enrico,
what is the status of the python 2 detection you committed some time ago?
Is it just supposed to be fallback in order to avoid worst things or
is lyx supposed to work on systems with both 2.6 3.x pythons?
Is see errors like
Found Python 2.6.8
File
Enrico,
what is the status of the python 2 detection you committed some time ago?
Is it just supposed to be fallback in order to avoid worst things or
is lyx supposed to work on systems with both 2.6 & 3.x pythons?
Is see errors like
Found Python 2.6.8
File
66 matches
Mail list logo