On Tuesday, 3 July 2018 16:21:52 PDT Willy Sudiarto Raharjo wrote:
> >> Thanks for all the python builds.
> >>
> >> Recently, however, Sbo-upgrades killed my ipython/jupyter setup (in
> >> python-2.7).
> >> The problem lies with prompt_toolkit-2.0.3 in the slackbuild script for
> >>
> I thought that David had already fixed that:
> https://git.slackbuilds.org/slackbuilds/commit/?id=57fb210c8
Uh oh... i didn't look at his branch earlier
i will delete my changes now
Thanks again
--
Willy Sudiarto Raharjo
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
I thought that David had already fixed that:
https://git.slackbuilds.org/slackbuilds/commit/?id=57fb210c8
-Original Message-
From: "Willy Sudiarto Raharjo" [will...@slackbuilds.org]
Date: 07/03/2018 06:29 PM
To: slackbuilds-users@slackbuilds.org
Subject: Re: [Slackbuilds-users] Wrong
> There is a problem with python-evdev package (which could have a general
> nature).
>
> Files in the directory
> /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/evdev-1.0.0-py2.7.egg-info/ have
> permission 660 and, thus, unreadable by a non-root.
>
> This breaks programs that use python-evdev, for
>> Thanks for all the python builds.
>>
>> Recently, however, Sbo-upgrades killed my ipython/jupyter setup (in
>> python-2.7).
>> The problem lies with prompt_toolkit-2.0.3 in the slackbuild script for
>> prompt_toolkit. This needs to be a version 1.
>
> I see this issue as well. I'm sure Dmitris
> Need REQUIRES="perl-YAML-Syck" in txt2html.info.
Thanks for catching it.
Pushed to my branch
--
Willy Sudiarto Raharjo
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
SlackBuilds-users mailing list
SlackBuilds-users@slackbuilds.org
>
> Have a look at:
>
> https://www.riverbankcomputing.com/pipermail/pyqt/2018-June/040421.html
>
> which talks about new releases of PyQt using a private copy of the sip
> module. I haven't thought deeply into the ramifications but perhaps that
> would ease the problem of old sip in 14.2.
>
On 04/07/18 06:19, B Watson wrote:
> On 7/3/18, Larry Hajali wrote:
>> I'm here and I did respond if you look at this email chain.
>
> Sorry, haven't been following this thread until now...
>
>> Issue is that newer PyQt5 versions rely on a newer version of sip that
>> comes with Slackware 14.2.
> Is the problem just that the maintainer's gone missing, or is he
> answering emails and giving out a reason why he won't update the
> build?
My issue is that this is a years old known packaging bug and no one has
bothered to do anything about it despite complaining on numerous
occasions here
On 7/3/18, Larry Hajali wrote:
> I'm here and I did respond if you look at this email chain.
Sorry, haven't been following this thread until now...
> Issue is that newer PyQt5 versions rely on a newer version of sip that
> comes with Slackware 14.2.
Hm. So if someone did build a newer qt5,
Hello,
There is a problem with python-evdev package (which could have a general
nature).
Files in the directory
/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/evdev-1.0.0-py2.7.egg-info/ have
permission 660 and, thus, unreadable by a non-root.
This breaks programs that use python-evdev, for example,
On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 11:03 AM B Watson wrote:
> On 7/3/18, or...@fredslev.dk wrote:
> >
> > When programs I use will soon no longer support releases older than
> > 5.9 I can not complain to them that it will no longer build in
> > Slackware because by all means we should of updated literally
On 7/3/18, or...@fredslev.dk wrote:
>
> When programs I use will soon no longer support releases older than
> 5.9 I can not complain to them that it will no longer build in
> Slackware because by all means we should of updated literally years
> ago...
You (or whoever) could submit a qt59 or
> Maybe you meant this by EOL also, the source mentioned in qt5.info
> has vanished. Sorry if this is already known by everybody, i didn't
> follow the qt discussion yet.
I didn't even notice that yet!
I meant that Qt5 upstream released 5.7.1 in December 14 2016 and will
not update it again.
Maybe you meant this by EOL also, the source mentioned in qt5.info has
vanished. Sorry if this is already known by everybody, i didn't follow the qt
discussion yet.
http://download.qt.io/official_releases/qt/5.7/5.7.1/single/qt-everywhere-opensource-src-5.7.1.tar.xzAm
03.07.2018 3:50 nachm.
Hi,
the luakit SlackBuild I submitted and which is now on the pending list,
needs to be changed to version 2.0, since there's no 2.1 source package
anymore on github. Also the md5 checksum changed.
I attached a patch file.
Thanks.
Marek
diff -rupN a/luakit.SlackBuild b/luakit.SlackBuild
---
On July 3, 2018 2:31:02 PM UTC, "or...@fredslev.dk" wrote:
>I just want to point out that when I first started using repology I had
>many false positive when looking at my own packages. However most of
>these have been solved quickly by e-mailing the repology maintainer
>whose e-mail is listed
I just want to point out that when I first started using repology I had
many false positive when looking at my own packages. However most of
these have been solved quickly by e-mailing the repology maintainer
whose e-mail is listed on their site at the bottom of the front page.
Yes, it occurred to me after I hit send that I should of been clearer.
I meant the qt-5.9.* package for current AlienBob maintains. I'll build
it on 14.2 and test that if needed...
___
SlackBuilds-users mailing list
SlackBuilds-users@slackbuilds.org
isn't AlienBob's QT5 the same version?
http://www.slackware.com/~alien/slackbuilds/qt5/pkg64/14.2/
-petar
On 3 July 2018 at 16:50, or...@fredslev.dk wrote:
> Is there any news on updating Qt5? The version 5.7.1 is EOL and has
> known security issues that will not be fixed. Slackware is also
Is there any news on updating Qt5? The version 5.7.1 is EOL and has
known security issues that will not be fixed. Slackware is also the
only distro terrible enough to use 5.7.1 according to repology.
https://repology.org/metapackage/qt5/versions
To be blunt, software that will fail with a
On 03/07/18 09:41, sborg63 wrote:
> Yes, one is forced to do so... Repology is of course just an
> example. Still, it is a bit steep to expect for people who contribute a
> couple of packages to set up their own middle layer to prevent this
> kind of risk.
Oh, come off it. The "risk" is
On Mon, 2 Jul 2018 23:10:04 +0100
David Spencer wrote:
> You can organise your own layer in between.
Yes, one is forced to do so... Repology is of course just an
example. Still, it is a bit steep to expect for people who contribute a
couple of packages to set up their own middle layer to prevent
On Monday 2 July 2018 14:02,
rob van nues put forth the proposition:
> Well, it has been raised as an issue but the author cannot see the
> problem
>
> https://github.com/repology/repology/issues/220
>
> This is not what I expected when email addresses were published in info
> files. Can we take
24 matches
Mail list logo
