On Jan 30, 2008 2:19 PM, Jed Frechette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jan 30, 2008, at 11:07 AM, Charles Lepple wrote:
>
> > On Jan 30, 2008 12:20 PM, Jed Frechette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> All of the rst2* scripts crash with:
> >> "ImportError: No module named docutils.core"
> >>
> >> I
On Jan 30, 2008 3:04 PM, Daniel Macks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 30, 2008 12:20 PM, Jed Frechette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > All of the rst2* scripts crash with:
> > "ImportError: No module named docutils.core"
> >
> > I gather that this is because docutils' CompileScript used /usr/bin
On Jan 30, 2008 12:20 PM, Jed Frechette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All of the rst2* scripts crash with:
> "ImportError: No module named docutils.core"
>
> I gather that this is because docutils' CompileScript used /usr/bin/
> python to build the package, which modified the shebang lines. Is
> t
On Jan 30, 2008, at 11:07 AM, Charles Lepple wrote:
> On Jan 30, 2008 12:20 PM, Jed Frechette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> All of the rst2* scripts crash with:
>> "ImportError: No module named docutils.core"
>>
>> I gather that this is because docutils' CompileScript used /usr/bin/
>> python to
On Jan 30, 2008 12:20 PM, Jed Frechette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All of the rst2* scripts crash with:
> "ImportError: No module named docutils.core"
>
> I gather that this is because docutils' CompileScript used /usr/bin/
> python to build the package, which modified the shebang lines. Is this
Thanks for working on this I really appreciate it. I am just getting
back to this now and ran in to a new issue with the rst2* scripts.
On Jan 12, 2008, at 12:34 PM, Charles Lepple wrote:
> Along these lines, the Fink docutils package currently does not depend
> on a specific version of Python
On Jan 12, 2008 2:13 PM, Jed Frechette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 12, 2008, at 11:05 AM, Charles Lepple wrote:
>
> > On Jan 7, 2008 10:57 AM, Jed Frechette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I was wondering if there was a reason why docutils gets installed to
> >> %p/lib/docutils/ rather
On Jan 12, 2008 2:13 PM, Jed Frechette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 12, 2008, at 11:05 AM, Charles Lepple wrote:
>
> > On Jan 7, 2008 10:57 AM, Jed Frechette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I was wondering if there was a reason why docutils gets installed to
> >> %p/lib/docutils/ rather
On Jan 12, 2008, at 11:05 AM, Charles Lepple wrote:
> On Jan 7, 2008 10:57 AM, Jed Frechette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I was wondering if there was a reason why docutils gets installed to
>> %p/lib/docutils/ rather than site-packages?
>
> Jed,
>
> Brendan Cully and I talked about this about a
On 12-Jan-08, at 10:05 AM, Charles Lepple wrote:
> On Jan 7, 2008 10:57 AM, Jed Frechette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I was wondering if there was a reason why docutils gets installed to
>> %p/lib/docutils/ rather than site-packages?
>
> Jed,
>
> Brendan Cully and I talked about this about a ye
On Jan 7, 2008 10:57 AM, Jed Frechette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was wondering if there was a reason why docutils gets installed to
> %p/lib/docutils/ rather than site-packages?
Jed,
Brendan Cully and I talked about this about a year and a half ago, but
essentially it is the way it is becaus
I was wondering if there was a reason why docutils gets installed to
%p/lib/docutils/ rather than site-packages?
Best,
--
Jed Frechette
University of New Mexico Lidar Lab
www.unm.edu/~lidar
-
This SF.net email is sponsor
12 matches
Mail list logo
