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 m
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:
> 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 n
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 kn
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
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
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 whic
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 mistake
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 correctl
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. T
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, wh
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
>
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
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 wha
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 a
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
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 PROTECT
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
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 l
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
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
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 upstr
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
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-
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
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 "unsubs
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 a
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
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
* 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 wo
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 dir
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 un
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 sound
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 use
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?
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 ne
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-
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 kno
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 encourag
* 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 relea
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 Debi
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 "unsubs
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
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 pytho
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
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
> happen
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,
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
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
> thing
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 th
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 [EMAI
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 "
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 pr
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
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
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. "p
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
57 matches
Mail list logo
