|
Home > Archive > Debian Developers > July 2006 > lilypond and python
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
lilypond and python
|
|
| Thomas Bushnell BSG 2006-07-18, 7:24 pm |
|
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 debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Josselin Mouette 2006-07-19, 8:05 am |
| Le mardi 18 juillet 2006 =E0 15:12 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG a =E9crit :
> 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.
--=20
.''`. Josselin Mouette /\./\
: :' : josselin.mouette@ens-lyon.org
`. `' joss@debian.org
`- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
| |
| Matthias Klose 2006-07-19, 7:26 pm |
| 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 debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Raphael Hertzog 2006-07-20, 7:53 am |
| 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 debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Loïc Minier 2006-07-21, 1:21 pm |
| 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-func
tions -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 <lool@dooz.org>
| |
| Thomas Bushnell BSG 2006-07-21, 7:25 pm |
| Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de> 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 debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Thomas Bushnell BSG 2006-07-21, 7:25 pm |
| Lo=C3=AFc Minier <lool+debian@via.ecp.fr> writes:
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> 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
| |
| Thomas Bushnell BSG 2006-07-21, 7:25 pm |
| Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de> 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 debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Loïc Minier 2006-07-22, 7:42 am |
| 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 <lool@dooz.org>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Raphael Hertzog 2006-07-22, 7:42 am |
| On Fri, 21 Jul 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de> writes:
>
>
> 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-deve...6/msg00008.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 debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Miles Bader 2006-07-24, 1:22 am |
| Lo=EFc Minier <lool+debian@via.ecp.fr> writes:
> - "make install" is called with prefix=3Ddebian/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=3Dfoo; make; make install prefix=3Dbar' 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
--=20
`...the Soviet Union was sliding in to an economic collapse so comprehensive
that in the end its factories produced not goods but bads: finished produc=
ts
less valuable than the raw materials they were made from.' [The Economist]
| |
| Thomas Bushnell BSG 2006-07-25, 7:49 am |
| Lo=C3=AFc Minier <lool+debian@via.ecp.fr> 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.=20
> 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
| |
| Gustavo Noronha Silva 2006-07-25, 7:49 am |
| Em Tue, 25 Jul 2006 01:56:26 -0700
Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net> 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 <kov@debian.org>
http://people.debian.org/~kov/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Steve Langasek 2006-07-25, 1:25 pm |
| On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 01:56:26AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Loïc Minier <lool+debian@via.ecp.fr> writes:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> 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.
vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
| |
| Aurélien GÉRÔME 2006-07-25, 7:24 pm |
| 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
| |
| Thomas Bushnell BSG 2006-07-25, 7:24 pm |
| Aur=C3=A9lien G=C3=89R=C3=94ME <ag@roxor.cx> 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
| |
| Thomas Bushnell BSG 2006-07-25, 7:24 pm |
| Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> 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 debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Thomas Bushnell BSG 2006-07-25, 7:24 pm |
| Gustavo Noronha Silva <kov@debian.org> 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 debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Martin Michlmayr 2006-07-25, 7:24 pm |
| * Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net> [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 debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Thomas Bushnell BSG 2006-07-25, 7:24 pm |
| Martin Michlmayr <tbm@cyrius.com> 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 debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Pierre Habouzit 2006-07-25, 7:24 pm |
| | |
| Thomas Bushnell BSG 2006-07-25, 7:24 pm |
| Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@debian.org> writes:
> your mails are a marvelous proof of bad faith. if you want to enforce=20
> your package to use python2.4 for some (apparently borken =E2=80=94 but I=
=20
> didn't bothered to check) reason, you just need (either through=20
> debian/pyversions + pysupport or XS-Python-Version through pycentral)=20
> 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
| |
| Pierre Habouzit 2006-07-25, 7:24 pm |
| | |
| Thomas Bushnell BSG 2006-07-25, 7:24 pm |
| Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@debian.org> 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 debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Thomas Bushnell BSG 2006-07-26, 1:24 am |
| Gustavo Noronha Silva <kov@debian.org> writes:
>
> 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 debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Gustavo Noronha Silva 2006-07-26, 1:24 am |
| Em Tue, 25 Jul 2006 16:53:47 -0700
Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net> 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 <kov@debian.org>
http://people.debian.org/~kov/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Thomas Bushnell BSG 2006-07-26, 1:24 am |
| Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk> 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 debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Matthew Garrett 2006-07-26, 1:24 am |
| Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net> 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 | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.devel@srcf.ucam.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Adeodato Simó 2006-07-26, 1:24 am |
| * Matthew Garrett [Wed, 26 Jul 2006 02:14:51 +0100]:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net> wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> 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-deve...7/msg00802.html
Not reading mandatory d-d-a, or extremely bad mid-term memory.
- http://lists.debian.org/debian-deve...7/msg00963.html
Total disrespect for fellow developers (rdependant maintainers).
- http://lists.debian.org/debian-deve...7/msg01003.html
Lack of knowledge about the packaging tools specific to one's own
packages.
- http://lists.debian.org/debian-deve...7/msg01011.html
Inability to find out/understand by oneself if something is amazing
or simply not true.
- http://lists.debian.org/debian-deve...7/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-deve.../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-deve...7/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. XXXXING. 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.
| |
| Thomas Bushnell BSG 2006-07-26, 1:24 am |
| Adeodato Sim=C3=B3 <dato@net.com.org.es> writes:
> - From http://lists.debian.org/debian-deve.../msg00684.html:
>
lf,[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> 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. XXXXING. 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
| |
| Miles Bader 2006-07-26, 1:24 am |
| Adeodato Sim=F3 <dato@net.com.org.es> writes:
> I am completely serious: all of the mails quoted below stress me
> profoundly
Have you tried decaf...?
-Miles
--=20
We have met the enemy, and he is us. -- Pogo
| |
| Pierre Habouzit 2006-07-26, 7:27 am |
| | |
| Loïc Minier 2006-07-26, 7:27 am |
| 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 <lool@dooz.org>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Pierre Habouzit 2006-07-26, 7:27 am |
| | |
| Loïc Minier 2006-07-26, 7:27 am |
| 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 <lool@dooz.org>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Thomas Bushnell BSG 2006-07-26, 7:30 pm |
| Lo=C3=AFc Minier <lool+debian@via.ecp.fr> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2006, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
>
> 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.
| |
| Thomas Bushnell BSG 2006-07-26, 7:30 pm |
| Lo=C3=AFc Minier <lool+debian@via.ecp.fr> writes:
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> 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?
| |
| Wouter Verhelst 2006-07-26, 7:30 pm |
| On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 07:25:59PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Adeodato Simó <dato@net.com.org.es> writes:
>
> 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 debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Stephen Gran 2006-07-27, 1:26 am |
| This one time, at band camp, Wouter Verhelst said:
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 07:25:59PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> 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 |
| : :' : sgran@debian.org |
| `. `' Debian user, admin, and developer |
| `- http://www.debian.org |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| Thomas Bushnell BSG 2006-07-27, 1:26 am |
| Stephen Gran <sgran@debian.org> 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 debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Thomas Bushnell BSG 2006-07-27, 1:26 am |
| Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> 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 debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Thomas Bushnell BSG 2006-07-27, 1:26 am |
| Stephen Gran <sgran@debian.org> 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 debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Loïc Minier 2006-07-27, 7:30 am |
| 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 <lool@dooz.org>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Loïc Minier 2006-07-27, 7:30 am |
| 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 <lool@dooz.org>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Thomas Bushnell BSG 2006-07-28, 1:23 am |
| Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@debian.org> 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 debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Thomas Bushnell BSG 2006-07-28, 1:23 am |
| Lo=C3=AFc Minier <lool+debian@via.ecp.fr> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> 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 Sim=C3=B3 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
| |
| Josselin Mouette 2006-07-28, 7:29 am |
| Le jeudi 27 juillet 2006 =E0 16:38 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG a =E9crit :
> Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@debian.org> writes:
>=20
>=20
> 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?
--=20
.''`. Josselin Mouette /\./\
: :' : josselin.mouette@ens-lyon.org
`. `' joss@debian.org
`- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
| |
| Loïc Minier 2006-07-28, 7:29 am |
| On Thu, Jul 27, 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> "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 <lool@dooz.org>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Thomas Bushnell BSG 2006-07-30, 7:30 am |
| Lo=C3=AFc Minier <lool+debian@via.ecp.fr> 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.
| |
| Thomas Bushnell BSG 2006-07-30, 7:30 am |
| Josselin Mouette <joss@debian.org> writes:
> Le jeudi 27 juillet 2006 =C3=A0 16:38 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG a =C3=A9=
crit :
=20[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> 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.
| |
| Loïc Minier 2006-07-30, 7:30 am |
| 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?
> 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 <200607271206.04579.madcoder@debian.org> 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 <lool@dooz.org>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Loïc Minier 2006-07-30, 7:30 am |
| On Sat, Jul 29, 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> 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 <lool@dooz.org>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Pierre Habouzit 2006-07-30, 7:30 am |
| | |
| Thomas Bushnell BSG 2006-07-30, 7:20 pm |
| Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@debian.org> writes:
> Le dim 30 juillet 2006 07:21, Thomas Bushnell BSG a =C3=A9crit :
>
>
> pure speculation, upstream *AND* users on the list, claim it works=20
> with python2.3. so stop with that, it's tiresome.
This is incorrect.=20=20
Thomas
| |
| Thomas Bushnell BSG 2006-07-30, 7:20 pm |
| Lo=C3=AFc Minier <lool+debian@via.ecp.fr> 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
| |
| Thomas Bushnell BSG 2006-07-30, 7:20 pm |
| Lo=C3=AFc Minier <lool+debian@via.ecp.fr> writes:
> On Sat, Jul 29, 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> 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
| |
| Thomas Bushnell BSG 2006-07-30, 7:20 pm |
| Lo=C3=AFc Minier <lool+debian@via.ecp.fr> 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.=20
> Basically, my remarks match those in the complete report of Pierre
> Habouzit in <200607271206.04579.madcoder@debian.org> 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.=20=20
Thomas
|
|
|
|
|