Re: lilypond and python
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 there is a winner and a loser. I don't. You seem to read my brain. Seriously, WTF are you writing? I heard from multiple sources that the problem with the new upstream release was not at all caused by the default python version -- as you claimed -- but either by a higher guile requirement. No, it requires *both* the newer Python *and* the newer Guile. I wrote the default python version, and I maintain that my original fix would work with the new upstream release. You are not paying attention. You are instead trying to get by with minimal understanding, proclaiming how deficient I am, reporting so far *three* bugs, one of which is not a bug, and the other two of which are *clearly* wishlist items; indeed, in one of the reports *you yourself* indicate that it's a wishlist item. Grow up. COUNTER-RETORT. Basically, my remarks match those in the complete report of Pierre Habouzit in [EMAIL PROTECTED] which you didn't reply to except to claim that you were already knew about the guile issue (yet you failed to mention it!). Since my messages are not bringing anything new to the discussion and will end up only bashing you over and over, I'll stop my contribution to this thread. PS: I cut the obvious personal attacks out of your messages; I suggest you take a break and stop calling people names. -- Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: lilypond and python
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. Why do you insist on not fixing e.g. the gcc build failure right now with the version in Debian which builds with the guile in Debian and the default python in Debian? 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 guile version. -- Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: lilypond and python
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: Le dim 30 juillet 2006 07:19, Thomas Bushnell BSG a écrit : Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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, […] Actually, way ahead of you on that. 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. So just to be clear, guile wont be fixed magically, Especially if you don't know guile/scheme... And what surprises[1] me is that the first public problem that you reported about that, was on the lilypond-devel mail list[2], in a mail that is 4h before mine on -devel (So I suppose that in American english far ahead is 4h before, I will keep that in mind in the future). So far, I've seen *no* bug report on guile from you. Because people reported to have it compile in 1.6.7 (I've found that in many posts on lylipond-* lists) and since it compiles with 1.8 it seems that it's a guile regression, so that it means that it can obviously be fixed in a 1.6.8 version. But that won't happen if you don't open a bug. Bug that (and I won't make a new explanation of that, I already did) you should have open *MONTHES* ago. [1] actually not that much sadly… [2] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2006-07/msg00133.html -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpiGVKgVYACv.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: lilypond and python
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 that issue except to use Guile 1.8. Why do you insist on not fixing e.g. the gcc build failure right now with the version in Debian which builds with the guile in Debian and the default python in Debian? I have not insisted any such thing. Thomas
Re: lilypond and python
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 guile version. It is amazing how you could get something so simple so very wrong. What I said ages ago was that it's *not* bound with the new upstream release; rather, it's bound with me *not knowing* whether the new upstream release could be packaged in the short-term. Thomas
Re: lilypond and python
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. Thomas
Re: lilypond and python
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 new upstream release compile with a non-default python version. This irony is amazing. Basically, my remarks match those in the complete report of Pierre Habouzit in [EMAIL PROTECTED] which you didn't reply to except to claim that you were already knew about the guile issue (yet you failed to mention it!). I said that I was ahead of him; I did not say that I was months ahead of him. I said that by the time he posted that message, it was not news to me. Thomas
Re: lilypond and python
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 suppose *HERE* is the real problem, which you failed to spot, because you didn't even TRIED to. I had that problem 1 hour after I started (previous steps included, so after roughly 20 minutes of compilation). Actually, way ahead of you on that. 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.
Re: lilypond and python
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 did. You can close or downgrade the bugs I reported, it's too late. Actually, I didn't make those packaging mistakes; the previous maintainer did. But I'm not somehow trying to keep secrets or claim some moral high ground. You seem to think this is a battle, in which there is a winner and a loser. I don't. I heard from multiple sources that the problem with the new upstream release was not at all caused by the default python version -- as you claimed -- but either by a higher guile requirement. No, it requires *both* the newer Python *and* the newer Guile. You are not paying attention. You are instead trying to get by with minimal understanding, proclaiming how deficient I am, reporting so far *three* bugs, one of which is not a bug, and the other two of which are *clearly* wishlist items; indeed, in one of the reports *you yourself* indicate that it's a wishlist item. Grow up.
Re: lilypond and python
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 failed to spot, because you didn't even TRIED to. I had that problem 1 hour after I started (previous steps included, so after roughly 20 minutes of compilation). Actually, way ahead of you on that. 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? -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Re: lilypond and python
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 package has received some attention because you complained publicly about python not being python2.4, and I was curious to see how complex it would have been to sed the scripts to use python2.4 instead of waiting for python to be python2.4. I am not the maintainer is the refrain of people who don't want to help. You don't have to help; nobody is ordering you to. I explained what would help, and got a lot of people with uninformed guesses about what would help, but no actual assistance. No, that's not a correct representation of what you did. What you did is bring whatever your excuse for being lazy was back then on debian-devel@ and claim is stops you from fixing bug. Your last excuse was the default Python version. You were told by a bunch of people that it has no impact. You were told that the default Python version had been announced as being available in experimental. 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 did. You can close or downgrade the bugs I reported, it's too late. Nobody has to help, but they seemed to be more interested in proving that I'm hopeless than actually helping. In your case, you claimed to be helping, by providing a solution to a problem that simply didn't exist (how to use python2.4 with the old lilypond version). And, I was already clear that this didn't help anything. That's entirely fair enough; the point was that I said that such-and-such would help me, and you provided something entirely different which doesn't help anyone. Thanks to Adeodato Simó who actually helped by providing something that works well. I didn't see any additional complexity in doing the same in a new upstream release, but indeed, I did not spend the extra effort to prepare a full new upstream release instead of you (the maintainer). You did not provide any detail on what the problem actually is with that upstream release. I heard from multiple sources that the problem with the new upstream release was not at all caused by the default python version -- as you claimed -- but either by a higher guile requirement. I consider that you failed in two things: - spotting the requirement of a new guile in the new upstream - explaining the problems you had with python not being python2.4 I do agree that I did not provide a patch against the new upstream release, but on the other hand you can't request people to provide patches on sources which will not build because of other problems. And lilypond won't build without other patches first, whatever the version. Oh, perhaps you wanted me to prepare a new guile upstream release first? And, as it happens, works far better than the cheap and easy advice to just use sed to change python to python2.4 all over the place. If every one of the proud insisters about how easy it is would reflect on the fact that they utterly failed to suggest the correct solution, this might do some good. Yeah, please give all your bashers a lesson of behavior, after all aren't you Thomas Bushnell on his white horse? Of course, what you did to the Python maintainer is certainly not bashing. -- Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: lilypond and python
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 below /usr/bin and are not suitable for byte compilation I guess. -- Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: lilypond and python
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, if I apply that recipe and try to compile,
you pay me $100 bucks if it doesn't work out of the box.
I'm tired of you whining. So I've decided to prove you that you spent
more time crying/whining that the necessary time to upload a new
version... And I found that it's worse than what I've ever feared:
(1) I've taken the 2.8.x upstream tarball and your debian/ dir from the
old one.
(2) I've spend 15 minutes checking that the patch against the previous
package were correctly merged. Then I've tried to build it, got an
error because it uses a python2.4-ism. 5 minutes googling proved
that there is a trivial patch to use python2.3 AS UPSTREAM CLAIMS
ON ITS HOMEPAGE, thing that as a maintainer of that package your
are supposed to know.
(3) I've applied that patch (adding [ ] around an expression) and
recompiled.
then it fails on the attached error. which is all *but* python
related. Still, just to be sure, I've forced the use of python2.4
with dato's patch + {aclocal,autoconf} of the package, and it still
failed at the same place.
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 hour after I started
(previous steps included, so after roughly 20 minutes of compilation).
FYI this is bug #316083 (please package guile-1.8)
attached (and I'm really way to kind to give you that) is the current
state of my work. All that mail just proves that you are just lazy, and
that you prefer to troll instead of doing actual work. I didn't know a
bit of lilypond packaging before I even started. It took me 1hour to
have the first real problem, and it was NONE of what you claimed
that /may/ /possibly/ be a problem.
What did I proved ? that you were ranting instead of doing a 1hour
long work and be done ? no worse. I've proved that you have postponed a
straightforward task, rumbling about python2.4 where it was completely
irrelevant to the problem, and whereas you are asked to package new
upstream since /monthes/. So since /monthes/ you could have been aware
that you needed a new guile. But isntead, you've polluted mails lists
with noise.
You've missed the real problem, and because of that, since packaging a
new guile won't be easy *now* so near before the freeze, your lack of
work has just lead lilypond to have a very good risk not beeing able to
make it into etch.
So now bluff-time is over, ALL the noise you did, and you did a *lot*,
lied on pure wind and mediocrity. Hence, I will second any formal
request to the Front Desk to have you redo NM again, like in
[EMAIL PROTECTED].
--
·O· Pierre Habouzit
··O[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OOOhttp://www.madism.org
/tmp/buildd/lilypond-2.8.4/out/share/lilypond/current/ly/music-functions-init.ly:99:1:
error: GUILE signaled an error for the expression beginning here
#
(use-modules (scm display-lily))invalid module name for use-syntax ((srfi
srfi-39))
/tmp/buildd/lilypond-2.8.4/out/share/lilypond/current/ly/music-functions-init.ly:99:5:
error: syntax error, unexpected '-', expecting '='
#(use
-modules (scm display-lily))Backtrace:
In unknown file:
?: 0* [lilypond-main
(/tmp/buildd/lilypond-2.8.4/ly/generate-documentation)]
?: 1* (letrec ((no-files-handler #)) (if (ly:get-option #) (gui-main
files)) ...)
In /tmp/buildd/lilypond-2.8.4/out/share/lilypond/current/scm/lily.scm:
380: 2 (let ((failed #)) (if (pair? failed) (begin # #) (begin # #)))
380: 3* [lilypond-all
(/tmp/buildd/lilypond-2.8.4/ly/generate-documentation)]
398: 4 (let* ((failed #) (handler #)) (for-each (lambda # # # ...) files)
failed)
402: 5* [for-each #procedure #f # #]
In /usr/share/guile/1.6/srfi/srfi-1.scm:
666: 6 (if (null? rest) (letrec ((lp #)) (lp list1)) ...)
...
670: 7 (begin (f (car l)) (lp (cdr l)))
671: 8* [#procedure #f #
/tmp/buildd/lilypond-2.8.4/ly/generate-documentation]
In /tmp/buildd/lilypond-2.8.4/out/share/lilypond/current/scm/lily.scm:
404: 9* [lilypond-file #procedure #f # ...]
413: 10 [catch ly-file-failed #procedure #f () #procedure #f (x . args)]
In unknown file:
?: 11* [#procedure #f ()]
In /tmp/buildd/lilypond-2.8.4/out/share/lilypond/current/scm/lily.scm:
414: 12* [ly:parse-file /tmp/buildd/lilypond-2.8.4/ly/generate-documentation]
In
/tmp/buildd/lilypond-2.8.4/out/share/lilypond/current/ly/music-functions-init.ly:
45: 13* (display-lily-init parser)
Re: lilypond and python
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 whatever for a package I'm not interested in. The package has received some attention because you complained publicly about python not being python2.4, and I was curious to see how complex it would have been to sed the scripts to use python2.4 instead of waiting for python to be python2.4. I want the discussion to stop, and to forget about the existence of lilypond. Please kill this discussion by making some lilypond uploads closing the bugs that were pointed out, new upstream release or not, in experimental or not. -- Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: lilypond and python
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 hour after I started (previous steps included, so after roughly 20 minutes of compilation). Actually, way ahead of you on that. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: lilypond and python
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 tarball or prepare a CVS snapshot or whatever for a package I'm not interested in. The package has received some attention because you complained publicly about python not being python2.4, and I was curious to see how complex it would have been to sed the scripts to use python2.4 instead of waiting for python to be python2.4. I am not the maintainer is the refrain of people who don't want to help. You don't have to help; nobody is ordering you to. I explained what would help, and got a lot of people with uninformed guesses about what would help, but no actual assistance. Nobody has to help, but they seemed to be more interested in proving that I'm hopeless than actually helping. In your case, you claimed to be helping, by providing a solution to a problem that simply didn't exist (how to use python2.4 with the old lilypond version). And, I was already clear that this didn't help anything. That's entirely fair enough; the point was that I said that such-and-such would help me, and you provided something entirely different which doesn't help anyone. Thanks to Adeodato Simó who actually helped by providing something that works well. And, as it happens, works far better than the cheap and easy advice to just use sed to change python to python2.4 all over the place. If every one of the proud insisters about how easy it is would reflect on the fact that they utterly failed to suggest the correct solution, this might do some good. Thomas
Re: lilypond and python
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 length of time at all to change things to reference 2.4 directly. If it /is/ horribly awkward and time consuming, I'm sure someone will be willing to submit a patch or NMU it for you. 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 ? lilypond seems like a real PITA to package indeed ! -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpWESxeeU2lO.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: lilypond and python
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 of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: lilypond and python
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 ? lilypond seems like a real PITA to package indeed ! No, but it uses up the laptop while it's building, and forces me to, for example, stay in the same place. It means that the cycle time on even minor errors can be obscenely long. well, you know, I do help to maintain most of the KDE modules, so tell me about long testing cycles, I think it could be interesting. and you know, you can use ccache, that speeds things a lot (on my machine it makes me compile most of kde modules in less than 15 minutes after the first full without ccache compilation). -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpdJNsTATqXV.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: lilypond and python
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 python-central. -- Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: lilypond and python
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 choice between python-support or python-central. It is very confusing to me why lilypond should need either python-support or python-central at all. Can you explain?
Re: lilypond and python
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 release, unless you are referring to something different.
Re: lilypond and python
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 obselete very quickly. The sad conclusion that, with this sentence being probably true (why doubt your knowledge about your own time constraints), that preparing such upload, given your skills _and_ hardware constraints, would take you more time that writing all the amounts of text you've send to this list during the last months about this very same issue, and reading all replies herein. 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 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 half a second. -- Fun will now commence -- Seven Of Nine, Ashes to Ashes, stardate 53679.4 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: lilypond and python
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 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 half a second. 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. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: lilypond and python
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 half a second. Does it occur to you that this just may not be sufficient? That just perhaps there is more to it than that? That I may have already *tried* that, and the consistent insistences from others that it will surely be sufficient indicate only that they have not *tried* it themselves. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: lilypond and python
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 bucks if it doesn't work out of the box. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: lilypond and python
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] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: lilypond and python
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, 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 by the time etch is released, then lilypond should be removed from etch. I wish this weren't so, but a hobbled solution seems to me to be a poor choice. I am interested in the opinions of others on this topic. BTW, did you take note of the problems I mentionned or would you prefer them reported in a bug report or even multiple bug reports? Multiple bug reports, please, one per distinct issue. Thomas
Re: lilypond and python
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 with python by the time etch is released, then lilypond should be removed from etch. I may have missed something on why you can't package it right now, but current build tools will use python2.4 instead of python to run setup.py if you declare such a dependency in debian/pyversions, as well as sed through the runnable files sed'ing the hashbang header, IIRC. Take a look at some other application which requires python2.4, such as turbogears and gazpacho, maybe? That said, I would also like to see python-defaults upgraded to python2.4, and can't see a reason for much more delay. See you, -- Gustavo Noronha Silva [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://people.debian.org/~kov/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: lilypond and python
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 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 by the time etch is released, then lilypond should be removed from etch. 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, when they might have been able to do something to help if they had known earlier. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: lilypond and python
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 by the time etch is released, then lilypond should be removed from etch. 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 Developer, low, and lame. I am very disappointed. :( Cheers, -- .''`. Aurélien GÉRÔME : :' : `. `'` Free Software Developer `- Unix Sys Net Admin signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: lilypond and 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, when they might have been able to do something to help if they had known earlier. I'm discussing it right now in the light of day! :) Seriously, no decision has been made, nor should any be made, at this point. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: lilypond and python
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 unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: lilypond and python
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 Developer, low, and lame. I am very disappointed. :( Of course it's a miserable course of events if it happens. But are you seriously saying that you think lilypond 2.6.3 is suitable for the release, even with the existing RC bugs fixed? I thought you were in agreement that releasing 2.6.3 was not acceptible. Thomas
Re: lilypond and python
* Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-07-25 14:52]: Of course it's a miserable course of events if it happens. But are you seriously saying that you think lilypond 2.6.3 is suitable for the release, even with the existing RC bugs fixed? I thought you were in agreement that releasing 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]
Re: lilypond and python
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 to bother communicating teeny bits of information? Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: lilypond and python
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 is the best use of my time, the python team could be encouraged to bother communicating teeny bits of information? your mails are a marvelous proof of bad faith. if you want to enforce your package to use python2.4 for some (apparently borken — but I didn't bothered to check) reason, you just need (either through debian/pyversions + pysupport or XS-Python-Version through pycentral) ask for a 2.4+ python version. just trust the tools for the rest, and please, stop trolling. lilypond is in a bad shape (see the very good remarks Loïc made you earlier, there is many basic errors or packaging) and I'm not sure the debian python crew is responsible for that part. At least, please accept patch that I know some people are willing to give, but that you blindly refuse, from your ivory tower. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpfA2wxEWo1G.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: lilypond and python
Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: your mails are a marvelous proof of bad faith. if you want to enforce your package to use python2.4 for some (apparently borken — but I didn't bothered to check) reason, you just need (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 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 what you're saying, but I find it hard to see how that could be what's happening. Maybe you don't understand what we're talking about here? Thomas
Re: lilypond and python
Le mer 26 juillet 2006 01:53, Thomas Bushnell BSG a écrit : Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: your mails are a marvelous proof of bad faith. if you want to enforce your package to use python2.4 for some (apparently borken — but I didn't bothered to check) reason, you just need (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 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 what you're saying, but I find it hard to see how that could be what's happening. 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. would you have tried to do it, a new lilypond would already been in the archive, instead of 10 new mails on debian-devel. Maybe you don't understand what we're talking about here? given the fact that I've NMUed sth like 40 packages for the new python policy, I really think I do. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpvqBUT5s9g2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: lilypond and python
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? would you have tried to do it, a new lilypond would already been in the archive, instead of 10 new mails on debian-devel. And golly gee, would have been on Saturday if not for the fact that my network access died in the heat, and I'm now in the midst of the next week's work in a busy life. So the question is, will the python team make the change in time, or not? If the answer is yes, then there is no reason for me to do extra work. If the answer is no, then there is no reason for me not to do the workaround as soon as practicable. For months now, the answer has been, oh, wait, there has been no answer, no guess, no prognostication, no this is our plan and we've done this much of it, not even a reply that says, I'm sorry, I just don't know. And now, for me who have been upset about this for months, wondering why the python team cannot bother to answer a very simple question which (as I said months ago) would help me plan my work, it is obscene that you pretend that I've been the intransigent one. Now, how much more of this, to avoid the courtesy of a five minute reply on the actual topic? Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: lilypond and python
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 which depends on python 2.4 will automagically get it even though it uses #! on ordinary python? This sounds like it's what you're saying, but I find it hard to see how that could be what's happening. yes, that's true; and I and many more people have stated and restated so in this thread; even if it didn't, nothing was blocking you from going ahead and doing it by hand. Maybe you don't understand what we're talking about here? Maybe you don't? I agree with you that the delay in having python2.4 become the default has no good reasoning, but then again, it seems like you're just trolling away. I even gave you two packages for you to look at as examples... Also, please do not CC me, I'm reading the list =). Thanks, -- Gustavo Noronha Silva [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://people.debian.org/~kov/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: lilypond and python
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 what you're saying, but I find it hard to see how that could be what's happening. yes, that's true; and I and many more people have stated and restated so in this thread; even if it didn't, nothing was blocking you from going ahead and doing it by hand. No, people have said many different things. Some have suggested patching lilypond to call python2.4, depending on python2.4, and not bothering with python-central and pyversions and such. And now, it sounded as if using pyversions and such meant that I didn't need to patch anything to call python2.4, which amazes me, given scripts that call /usr/bin/python directly. How will that work, because I sure don't understand that. I agree with you that the delay in having python2.4 become the default has no good reasoning, but then again, it seems like you're just trolling away. I even gave you two packages for you to look at as examples... 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? Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: lilypond and python
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 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 directly. If it /is/ horribly awkward and time consuming, I'm sure someone will be willing to submit a patch or NMU it for you. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: lilypond and python
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 directly. If it /is/ horribly awkward and time consuming, I'm sure someone will be willing to submit a patch or NMU it for you. It takes about eight hours per compilation attempt on my available hardware running unstable. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: lilypond and python
* 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? 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 directly. If it /is/ horribly awkward and time consuming, I'm sure someone will be willing to submit a patch or NMU it for you. Well said. Now let's take the opportunity to send a public message to Thomas Bushnell BSG: Thomas, please limit the contents of your next mails in this thread to complaing repeteadly about how your questions have been unanswered for months, how the evil Matthias Klose has been ignoring you on purpose, and how worrysome it is the possibility of doing all the immense task that updating lilypond to python2.4, just to have it become the default version the very next day. Because, Thomas, if I see _one_ more mail from you which instead of WHINE WHINE WHINE, it screams I AM AN INCOMPETENT (*), I am going to bring up a formal request to the Front Desk to have you redo NM again. I am completely serious: all of the mails quoted below stress me profoundly, and I'd rather have the whining continue. (*) References (mostly in chronological order): - http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/07/msg00802.html Not reading mandatory d-d-a, or extremely bad mid-term memory. - http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/07/msg00963.html Total disrespect for fellow developers (rdependant maintainers). - http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/07/msg01003.html Lack of knowledge about the packaging tools specific to one's own packages. - http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/07/msg01011.html Inability to find out/understand by oneself if something is amazing or simply not true. - http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/07/msg01010.html Ignorance about tools that every Debian Developer knows about (e.g., ccache, e.g., dpkg-buildpackage -b -nc). As a colophon: - 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 being probably true (why doubt your knowledge about your own time constraints), that preparing such upload, given your skills _and_ hardware constraints, would take you more time that writing all the amounts of text you've send to this list during the last months about this very same issue, and reading all replies herein. And, finally, what makes baby Jesus cry the most: - http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/07/msg01005.html Now, how much more of this, to avoid the courtesy of a five minute reply on the actual topic? Dude, the only possible corteous reply is: Nobody knows when python2.4 will become the default python version, maybe even not Matthias, and in case he does, he is not telling. However, the fact that you're not getting an answer means NOBODY IS GETTING AN ANSWER EITHER. And this is something that, sadly, happens in Debian from time to time, and other people just deal with it, BUT NOT THE BSG DUDE. And fortunately as of now, we have a big number of packages in the archive that build-depend only on python2.4, but not on python2.3, despite it not being the default version, a big number of packages BUT. NOT. FUCKING. LILY. BSG. POND. -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org A dream is an answer to a question that we don't know how to ask. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: lilypond and python
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 being probably true (why doubt your knowledge about your own time constraints), that preparing such upload, given your skills _and_ hardware constraints, would take you more time that writing all the amounts of text you've send to this list during the last months about this very same issue, and reading all replies herein. This is incorrect; I write and read very quickly. And this is something that, sadly, happens in Debian from time to time, and other people just deal with it, BUT NOT THE BSG DUDE. I don't think the gratuitous rudeness is called for. In any case, the just deal with it is exactly what I was doing, until a few people decided that my method of dealing with it was wildly remiss. So I thought, out of respect for them, I would ask debian-devel. What I got was a lot of blaming me for not guessing. And fortunately as of now, we have a big number of packages in the archive that build-depend only on python2.4, but not on python2.3, despite it not being the default version, a big number of packages BUT. NOT. FUCKING. LILY. BSG. POND. As I have said (repeatedly); I will upload immediately if there is a working patch posted to the bug against the latest upstream lilypond. So if it's really *trivial*, then *wonderful*. Another option would be someone with a testing system that has all the build-dependencies installed which is capable of compiling lilypond in under an hour. Thomas
Re: lilypond and python
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
Re: lilypond and python
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 from compile-time actions: `prefix' Running `make install' with a different value of `prefix' from the one used to build the program should _not_ recompile the program. So `configure --prefix=foo; make; make install prefix=bar' is still the recommended way to install to an alternate root. Even very recent versions of the GNU coding standards do not mandate DESTDIR support, though they mention it. Of course who knows what coding standards lilypond ascribes to... -Miles -- `...the Soviet Union was sliding in to an economic collapse so comprehensive that in the end its factories produced not goods but bads: finished products less valuable than the raw materials they were made from.' [The Economist]
Re: lilypond and python
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 the transition, and doesn't require more work. Since Matthias Klose says that python-defaults points to 2.4 in experimental, I can package lilypond and upload it to experimental; that will probably happen this weekend unless an unexpected problem arises. 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. It also didn't switch to the new Python policy, and I know that the number of libraries converted to the new Python policy was a good indicator of the progress towards switching the default python runtime, i.e. it's the other way around: first convert a maximum number of packages to the new policy and then switch the default python runtime. BTW, did you take note of the problems I mentionned or would you prefer them reported in a bug report or even multiple bug reports? Cheers, -- Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: lilypond and python
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 from me? Please stop exagerating as well. Matthias has its share of responsibility, but don't accuse him of hiding stuff when you didn't read carefully debian-devel-announce and when you're not subscribed to debian-python. http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/06/msg8.html So the experimental upload was announced (and done) more than a month ago. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: lilypond and python
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 is mailed to the appropriate
lilypond bug, it would immediately become a high priority matter for
me to upload it. I have wanted to do so for months.
Here's a patch (which I couldn't test, see below).
Please note that while writing this patch, I saw that:
- make install is called with prefix=debian/tmp/..., this is usually
wrong, DESTDIR= should be used instead because prefix is a runtime
path; this can cause important bugs such as #337616
- you don't call dh_python; dh_python will typically create
${python:Depends} which will have python2.4 if your scripts start
with /usr/bin/python2.4
- your package is not bin NMU safe due to = source-version dependencies
on an arch: all package
- your package fails to build in my pbuilder:
rm -f ./out/accidental-placement.dep;
DEPENDENCIES_OUTPUT=./out/accidental-placement.dep
./out/accidental-placement.o g++ -c -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DNDEBUG
-DSTRING_UTILS_INLINED -Iinclude -I./out -I../flower/include -I../flower/./out
-I../flower/include -DNDEBUG -I/usr/include/python2.3 -O2 -finline-functions
-g -pipe -I/usr/include/pango-1.0 -I/usr/include/freetype2
-I/usr/include/glib-2.0 -I/usr/lib/glib-2.0/include-I/usr/include/freetype2
-DNDEBUG -I/usr/include/python2.3 -O2 -finline-functions -g -pipe
-I/usr/include/pango-1.0 -I/usr/include/freetype2 -I/usr/include/glib-2.0
-I/usr/lib/glib-2.0/include-I/usr/include/freetype2 -W -Wall -Wconversion
-o out/accidental-placement.o accidental-placement.cc
include/accidental-interface.hh:24: error: extra qualification
'Accidental_interface::' on member 'accurate_boxes'
make[2]: *** [out/accidental-placement.o] Error 1
make[2]: Leaving directory `/tmp/buildd/lilypond-2.6.3/lily'
This is all *very* broken.
Beside, the configure script uses:
STEPMAKE_PYTHON(REQUIRED, 2.1)
which either means that you don't really need python 2.4, or that the
configure test is broken.
--
Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- lilypond-2.6.3/debian/changelog
+++ lilypond-2.6.3/debian/changelog
@@ -1,3 +1,14 @@
+lilypond (2.6.3-11) UNRELEASED; urgency=low
+
+ * Call configure and $(MAKE) with PYTHON=/usr/bin/python2.4 by exporting
+PYTHON from debian/rules.
+ * Update build-deps and deps to use python2.4 instead of the default python
+version.
+ * Fix the shebang of scripts in /usr/bin to use /usr/bin/python2.4 instead
+of /usr/bin/python.
+
+ -- Loic Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri, 21 Jul 2006 16:07:50 +0200
+
lilypond (2.6.3-10) unstable; urgency=low
* debian/control (Build-Depends): Drop explicit dependency on
--- lilypond-2.6.3/debian/control
+++ lilypond-2.6.3/debian/control
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
Source: lilypond
-Build-Depends: debhelper (= 4.0.0), python-dev, guile-1.6-dev (= 1.6.7),
flex (= 2.5.4a-14) | flex-old, bison ( 1:1.50) | bison ( 1:1.75-1),
texinfo (= 4.6-1), groff, m4, gettext (= 0.10.36-1), mftrace (= 1.1.17-1),
fontforge (= 0.0.20050911-1), pkg-config (= 0.9.0), libfreetype6-dev,
libpango1.0-dev, libfontconfig-dev
+Build-Depends: debhelper (= 4.0.0), python2.4-dev, guile-1.6-dev (= 1.6.7),
flex (= 2.5.4a-14) | flex-old, bison ( 1:1.50) | bison ( 1:1.75-1),
texinfo (= 4.6-1), groff, m4, gettext (= 0.10.36-1), mftrace (= 1.1.17-1),
fontforge (= 0.0.20050911-1), pkg-config (= 0.9.0), libfreetype6-dev,
libpango1.0-dev, libfontconfig-dev
Build-Depends-Indep: gs-gpl (= 8.01-5) | gs-esp | gs (= 7.07-1), netpbm (=
2:9.10-1), imagemagick, emacs-intl-fonts, xfonts-intl-arabic,
xfonts-intl-asian, xfonts-intl-chinese, xfonts-intl-chinese-big,
xfonts-intl-european, xfonts-intl-japanese, xfonts-intl-japanese-big,
xfonts-intl-phonetic, ttf-kochi-gothic, ttf-kochi-mincho
Build-Conflicts-Indep: gs-afpl | gs-gpl (= 8.01-1), gs-gpl (= 8.01-2), gs-gpl
(= 8.01-3), gs-gpl (= 8.01-4)
Section: tex
@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@
Architecture: any
Replaces: lilypond1.3
Provides: lilypond1.3
-Depends: ${shlibs:Depends}, python, guile-1.6 (= 1.6.7), ${misc:Depends},
lilypond-data (= ${Source-Version})
+Depends: ${shlibs:Depends}, python2.4, guile-1.6 (= 1.6.7), ${misc:Depends},
lilypond-data (= ${Source-Version})
Recommends: lilypond-doc
Description: A program for typesetting sheet music
LilyPond is a music typesetter, an automated engraving system. It
--- lilypond-2.6.3/debian/rules
+++ lilypond-2.6.3/debian/rules
@@ -37,6 +37,8 @@
# This has to be exported to make some magic below work.
export DH_OPTIONS
+export PYTHON=/usr/bin/python2.4
+
build: build-stamp
build-stamp:
dh_testdir
@@ -90,6 +92,15 @@
# Add here commands to install the package into debian/tmp.
$(MAKE) install prefix=$(CURDIR)/debian/tmp/usr
+ # force Python runtime in shebang
+
Re: lilypond and python
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 your package and upload it to experimental. pending doesn't imply will be fixed in x days. What *does* pending mean? You seemed to use it to mean please stop asking me the question I promise to ignore forever anyway. All I have ever wanted from you is *some* clear indication of what your plans are, and this is the one thing you have rudely and, IMO, unacceptably refused to provide. I'll try again, since you seem to be willing to reply at the moment. When do you estimate python-defaults will point to 2.4 in unstable? Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: lilypond and python
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. If such a functional patch appears and is mailed to the appropriate lilypond bug, it would immediately become a high priority matter for me to upload it. I have wanted to do so for months. Here's a patch (which I couldn't test, see below). Unfortunately, the patch is not against the new upstream lilypond. Since Matthias Klose says that python-defaults points to 2.4 in experimental, I can package lilypond and upload it to experimental; that will probably happen this weekend unless an unexpected problem arises. Thomas
Re: lilypond and 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 PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: lilypond and python
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 not making it easy to colloborate with you. I expect more from you. I'm still testing uprades and fixing upgrade issues. experimental has a python-defaults pointing to 2.4, so you can prepare your package and upload it to experimental. pending doesn't imply will be fixed in x days. You sent an announce to debian-devel-announce announcing the upload of the new python2.4 by default more than a month ago. You're not living up to your own promise. I tried to help you in numerous ways: - I've done the new dh_python and handled the initial bugs in a timely fashion - I coordinated the discussion between you and Josselin while you refused to discuss together - I tried to help you setup a real Python team and you promised me to start using pkg-python SVN repository and you never did that. Now, please accept the blame of Thomas, you're late and it's your fault. You are the python maintainer and nobody is forcing you to keep that responsibility and I explicitely asked you to share it with other people having more time than you have but you haven't done anything to help that process... Would you please, accept the facts, open your eyes and start making efforts to setup a real python maintenance team? I'll gladly assist you in that process. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: lilypond and python
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/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Re: lilypond and python
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 your package and upload it to experimental. 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, not just in the build process, but at run time. 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. Indeed, the relevant wishlist bug on python 2.4 has been marked pending for some time now, which seems to be not quite the truth. Perhaps it's not a lie, but I have no way to judge and have been stymied by the utter lack of responsiveness by the python team in response to queries. If the python team had told me, months ago, that it would be months before python-defaults was updated, I would have then begun work on a workaround for lilypond. But I was trusting that it was really a quick matter, at least, that's what people told me. Unfortunately, the python-defaults maintainer ignores all mail on the subject. 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 is mailed to the appropriate lilypond bug, it would immediately become a high priority matter for me to upload it. I have wanted to do so for months. But I don't alas, have the time to spend on a workaround patch myself, which will (supposedly) become obselete very quickly. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
