Re: [arch-general] Spell Checking in Emacs
wahjava...@gmail.com (Ashish SHUKLA) writes: > Steve Holmes writes: >> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 05:02:24AM +0530, Ashish SHUKLA wrote: >>> Steve Holmes writes: >>> > Do I have to set up anything in advance in order to use ispell in >>> > emacs with the aspell program? See the message below for the full >>> > story. I can't get past this read-only problem. >>> >>> (setq ispell-program-name (executable-find "aspell")) > >> That fixed it! It seems that the documentation I followed, suggested a >> different setting to specify the aspell binary but this setting you >> gave me enables it to work properly now. Thanks and sorry for the repeated >> queries to the list; I thought there might have been a problem with >> how it was implemented with Arch. > >> So Now i'm off to write those perfectly spelled e-mails. > > Use flyspell to make it comfortable :). As some people know using flyspell with some modes are not fully supported. I know that flyspell with enriched mode used to give people problems but I believe that has been fixed. What would be ideal is to get Hunspell working if you follow the emacswiki I still do not have a valid Hunspell working on two operating systems. One being Arch, the other OpenIndiana so I had to resort back to aspell for both. A little while ago I was thinking about filing a bug report against emacs and Hunspell for that very reason but haven't had the time to do so. Rthoreau
Re: [arch-general] Python 3 Rationale?
On 21/10/10 01:45, maxc wrote: There is an excellent post by Guido here, Hilton: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2008-February/011910.html That was in February 2008... Back when we were using python-2.5 because neither python-2.6 or python-3.0 had been released. So I doubt even Guido really cares what he thought then. Things have changed. Anyway, the point of this discussion is... well, there isn't one. The only way the python symlinks are going to change from what we currently have is if a person who wants them changes: - becomes active in the community - is elected as a TU - gets brought on as a developer - convinces me they are competent enough to take over python maintenance - makes the change At which point we all go "WTF? Those symlinks have been like that for two years." and revoke developer privileges as they are a crazy person and should not be trusted with our packages. Case closed. Now a good use of time would be to help resolve any remaining issues with this transition. Make sure bug reports are made for packages from our repos that are having issues and post fixes. Help people on the AUR update their packages for the change. Report upstream any packages that keep a shebang pointing to python when the software was configured with python2 or if their software can not be configured to use a specific version of python. Update the python page on the wiki. Allan
Re: [arch-general] Python 3 Rationale?
On 10/20/2010 06:52 AM, Hilton Medeiros wrote: HackerNews, Slashdot, ...: - Someone post an announcement with 10 lines; - They read it (or not) and think that that is all the information behind the story; - They furiously start typing the first thing that pops in their mind; Often preceded by tl;dr. - By the time you (Mithrandir, in this case) posted a more in-depth post, the majority had already run to the next news. Also, the... bitching there is completely nonsense. I can't believe they know Linux or even python well enough judging by what they say about developing _difficulties_ because of this move. Amen to that. It's almost worse than comp.os.linux.advocacy, which gets mostly spam from Wintrolls and Mac fanboys. Very few GNU/Linux users try and take them on there (and with good reason.) Only reason I go there (HackerNews, Slashdot) is to read what's new in the news, and make a comment or two. Arguing with them does diddly-squat. :( AFAIK, with python is easy as hell to build a local/virtual environment for any python version... I don't get it. Anyway, nothing to see there for this post, sadly. Well, *some* programs that worked with Python 2, don't work very well/at all with Python 3. But yeah, it's not usually too difficult to fix it. Regards.
Re: [arch-general] Python 3 Rationale?
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 3:00 PM, wrote: > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 12:10:03PM -0500, C Anthony Risinger wrote: > >> the point is that it really, really, really... doesn't matter what >> `python` is symlinked to. developers need to have the competence to >> instruct the system appropriately, and construct the environment they >> need to function properly. if you rely on a particular behavior from >> a moving target, then your app is already broken. > > Problem is that some packages for the time being *have* to be Python 2, > most notably anything numpy or related to it. Adapting numpy to P3 is > not just a matter of changing some details. Up to now numpy has had its > own multidimensional array classes. The new buffer interface in P3 is > superior to these, so numpy should (and probably will) migrate to this. > But this is not a simple operation, it involves a lot more than the > normal P2 or P3 transition supported by the existing tools. slightly nit picky :-), but numpy supports py3k AFAIK. i am also on the vpython (visual) list, and they were talking about how vpython now works on py3k because numpy supports py3k. wikipedia/official site seems to confirm this as well. and alas, if a package *must* be python2, it should enforce this itself by blowing up :-). it mainly needs to make it easy to manually run under python2.x... this is actually all i had to do to fix pyjamas (python -> javascript translator); pyjamas was spawning subprocesses during the translation phase, but it was simply calling `python` (assumption)... sooo, all i had to do was make it check sys.executable for a valid entry, and use that instead, thus passing on the current interpreter (python2/whatever), instead of inadvertently running py3k. > At the same time other packages (from Arch) expect python to link to > python3. Things would be *much* easier if *all* would refer explicitly > to either 2 or 3, instead of assuming some default. In that sense the > Arch decision seems unfortunate. and therein lies the problem: expectation is the root of all disappointment. really though, i agree with you 100%; this is why i previously said i hope the python2/python3 naming becomes defacto, so apps that *must* use the 2.x series can reasonably do so, cross-distro, simply by invoking `python2`. as for `python`... i just don't see any reason why it shouldn't link to the latest release; 'to not break unprepared apps that have known about this transition for years' just isn't a good enough reason in my opinion. C Anthony
Re: [arch-general] Python 3 Rationale?
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 12:10:03PM -0500, C Anthony Risinger wrote: > the point is that it really, really, really... doesn't matter what > `python` is symlinked to. developers need to have the competence to > instruct the system appropriately, and construct the environment they > need to function properly. if you rely on a particular behavior from > a moving target, then your app is already broken. Problem is that some packages for the time being *have* to be Python 2, most notably anything numpy or related to it. Adapting numpy to P3 is not just a matter of changing some details. Up to now numpy has had its own multidimensional array classes. The new buffer interface in P3 is superior to these, so numpy should (and probably will) migrate to this. But this is not a simple operation, it involves a lot more than the normal P2 or P3 transition supported by the existing tools. At the same time other packages (from Arch) expect python to link to python3. Things would be *much* easier if *all* would refer explicitly to either 2 or 3, instead of assuming some default. In that sense the Arch decision seems unfortunate. Ciao, -- FA There are three of them, and Alleline.
Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] db-5.1 rebuild
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 10:52 PM, Dan McGee wrote: > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Evangelos Foutras > wrote: >> What do we do for stuff like PHP which will get linked to PostgreSQL >> 9.0.1 which is in [testing] right now? Or will PostgreSQL be moved out >> of [testing] at the same time as the db rebuilds? > > There was no .so bump, so it shouldn't matter. Oh, awesome. Sorry for the noise. :)
Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] db-5.1 rebuild
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Evangelos Foutras wrote: > On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 7:58 AM, Allan McRae wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Time to move on to the next rebuild! This time it is for db-5.1. >> >> There are the following soname changes: >> libdb-4.8.so -> libdb-5.1.so >> libdb-4.so -> libdb-5.so >> libdb_cxx-4.8.so -> libdb_cxx-5.1.so >> libdb_cxx-4.so -> libdb_cxx-5.so >> >> It is a relatively small rebuild of 39 packages. >> >> I never got around to the db-5.0 update but that is a good thing as many >> pieces of software check for a db major version >= 4 and minor version >= 1 >> when they just want db>=4.1... Now we have db-5.1 we do not have to fix >> that stupidness. As always, more evidence that laziness pays off. >> >> I have pushed the db update to [staging] and will work on the rest of [core] >> later tonight (unless someone beats me to it...) >> >> Allan > > What do we do for stuff like PHP which will get linked to PostgreSQL > 9.0.1 which is in [testing] right now? Or will PostgreSQL be moved out > of [testing] at the same time as the db rebuilds? There was no .so bump, so it shouldn't matter. -Dan
Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] db-5.1 rebuild
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 7:58 AM, Allan McRae wrote: > Hi, > > Time to move on to the next rebuild! This time it is for db-5.1. > > There are the following soname changes: > libdb-4.8.so -> libdb-5.1.so > libdb-4.so -> libdb-5.so > libdb_cxx-4.8.so -> libdb_cxx-5.1.so > libdb_cxx-4.so -> libdb_cxx-5.so > > It is a relatively small rebuild of 39 packages. > > I never got around to the db-5.0 update but that is a good thing as many > pieces of software check for a db major version >= 4 and minor version >= 1 > when they just want db>=4.1... Now we have db-5.1 we do not have to fix > that stupidness. As always, more evidence that laziness pays off. > > I have pushed the db update to [staging] and will work on the rest of [core] > later tonight (unless someone beats me to it...) > > Allan What do we do for stuff like PHP which will get linked to PostgreSQL 9.0.1 which is in [testing] right now? Or will PostgreSQL be moved out of [testing] at the same time as the db rebuilds?
Re: [arch-general] python3 update
Le 20/10/2010 21:00, solsTiCe d'Hiver a écrit : Le mardi 19 octobre 2010 à 18:54 +0200, Clément Démoulins a écrit : And the dependencies must be updated from python to python2. also I guess something like python>2.6.5 should become python2>2.6.5 which does not make any sense since python2 in archlinux is>= 2.7 and then could be shortened into python2 , no ? Actually the last 2.6 version we had in extra provided 'python2', so you could still end up with a python2 dependency satisfied by 2.6.x on an outdated system :)
Re: [arch-general] Python 3 Rationale?
On Oct 20, 2010, at 01:10 PM, C Anthony Risinger wrote: On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 10:45 AM, maxc wrote: > > There is an excellent post by Guido here, Hilton: > http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2008-February/011910.html > > Guido seems to favor using /usr/bin/python3.0 or /usr/bin/python3 and > /usr/bin/python as symlinks to the respective versions of Python. > > 'Perhaps we should only install "python3.0" and not "python".' > > We're not here to discussion semantics ofc. :) There is a much broader > concern which I hope we can address through friendly discourse. I think you're agreeing with Arch's decision, but it's not clear to me, so disregard some of the following if that's the case :-) the link provided clearly demonstrates the symlink/ambiguity of the `python` name. I think he just means maybe they shouldn't create/include the symlink by default. so, my last attempt to reason with this circular discussion... :-) ultimately, py3k is here, and is the path forward, regardless of how long python2.x will be around (many years i'm certain, it works just fine [maybe some yummy pypy to come too]). They are both available simultaneously, and will be for a very long time. however, if you use the bare `python` name, expect to adapt/detect the version/etc at runtime, because you are leaving the environment up to the system. factor out the various compatibility bits, so they can be selectively imported based on the version, thus avoiding syntax errors, etc. the point is that it really, really, really... doesn't matter what `python` is symlinked to. developers need to have the competence to instruct the system appropriately, and construct the environment they need to function properly. if you rely on a particular behavior from a moving target, then your app is already broken C Anthony Yes, I do support the decision. :) My final concern has been the convention of how Python is linked. I agree, devs can't rely on that. But is there anything to be gained by going against what the Python devs are suggesting? Couldn't we have python and python3 and still be bleeding edge? (Assuming that what I've suggested is still how Guido and others feel, that may have since changed.) Lastly, your reply is refreshing! Thank you so much, I really appreciate being able to discuss things like this. :)
Re: [arch-general] python3 update
Le mardi 19 octobre 2010 à 18:54 +0200, Clément Démoulins a écrit : > > And the dependencies must be updated from python to python2. > also I guess something like python>2.6.5 should become python2>2.6.5 which does not make any sense since python2 in archlinux is >= 2.7 and then could be shortened into python2 , no ?
Re: [arch-general] Odd message on boot
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 01:26:26PM -0400, David Rosenstrauch wrote: > So, it's helpful to know that one of the message buses is the source > of the issue. Do you know if there's any way to narrow it down more > than that? i.e., find out which config file is causing this? It's caused by the avahi-daemon, check [1]. And if you're not sure which configuration file contains a reference to this group, you can always do something like `grep -R 'netdev' /etc/` to find out. [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=385495
Re: [arch-general] Odd message on boot
On 10/20/2010 01:08 PM, Aljosha Papsch wrote: It means, D-BUS (or any message bus) is missing a group specified in its configuration file. A solution might be to just create the group. No, I'm not going to go and blindly create the group. I want to understand what in my configuration is expecting that group, as it's entirely possible (and maybe even likely) that my configuration is wrong and that the right course of action would be correcting the config. So, it's helpful to know that one of the message buses is the source of the issue. Do you know if there's any way to narrow it down more than that? i.e., find out which config file is causing this? Thanks, DR
Re: [arch-general] Python 3 Rationale?
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 10:45 AM, maxc wrote: > > There is an excellent post by Guido here, Hilton: > http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2008-February/011910.html > > Guido seems to favor using /usr/bin/python3.0 or /usr/bin/python3 and > /usr/bin/python as symlinks to the respective versions of Python. > > 'Perhaps we should only install "python3.0" and not "python".' > > We're not here to discussion semantics ofc. :) There is a much broader > concern which I hope we can address through friendly discourse. I think you're agreeing with Arch's decision, but it's not clear to me, so disregard some of the following if that's the case :-) the link provided clearly demonstrates the symlink/ambiguity of the `python` name. I think he just means maybe they shouldn't create/include the symlink by default. so, my last attempt to reason with this circular discussion... :-) ultimately, py3k is here, and is the path forward, regardless of how long python2.x will be around (many years i'm certain, it works just fine [maybe some yummy pypy to come too]). They are both available simultaneously, and will be for a very long time. however, if you use the bare `python` name, expect to adapt/detect the version/etc at runtime, because you are leaving the environment up to the system. factor out the various compatibility bits, so they can be selectively imported based on the version, thus avoiding syntax errors, etc. the point is that it really, really, really... doesn't matter what `python` is symlinked to. developers need to have the competence to instruct the system appropriately, and construct the environment they need to function properly. if you rely on a particular behavior from a moving target, then your app is already broken. C Anthony
Re: [arch-general] Odd message on boot
It means, D-BUS (or any message bus) is missing a group specified in its configuration file. A solution might be to just create the group.
Re: [arch-general] Python 3 Rationale?
On 11:17 Wed 20 Oct , Dan McGee wrote: > Fucking hell! Can we stop with this constant nagging on the list? It > doesn't help (as you can see), you waste 1926 people's time with the > message (yes, this list has this many subscribers, and it is soon to > be one less), and it just doesn't need to be said. I'm sure you made > it through the message content just fine, even with the top post. > > Things that piss list subscribers (or at least me) off: > * Bitching about top posting > * Repeated posts containing no new information > * More than two emails without either party doing anything except > having a public argument > * Not understanding the subject of an email and still responding > (several emails in this thread have done so...) > * Changing the topic without changing the subject > * Voting on something that is not a vote > > So you don't piss other subscribers off, if you want to bitch at/about > me, please do it off-list. > > Getting off my soapbox now, > > -Dan (the Arch Developer) For the fucking sake! If you have not enough brains for choosing right place for quotes - DO NOT FUCKING TYPE MESSAGES. --
Re: [arch-general] Python 3 Rationale?
Am Wed, 20 Oct 2010 12:02:27 -0400 schrieb Matthew Gyurgyik : > Really please, please don't top post. > http://www.river.com/users/share/etiquette/ And, really please, only quote the relevant parts to which the answer refers. Heiko
Re: [arch-general] Python 3 Rationale?
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 11:02 AM, Matthew Gyurgyik wrote: > On 10/20/2010 11:45 AM, maxc wrote: >> >> There is an excellent post by Guido here, Hilton: >> http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2008-February/011910.html >> >> Guido seems to favor using /usr/bin/python3.0 or /usr/bin/python3 and >> /usr/bin/python as symlinks to the respective versions of Python. >> >> 'Perhaps we should only install "python3.0" and not "python".' >> >> We're not here to discussion semantics ofc. :) There is a much broader >> concern which I hope we can address through friendly discourse. >> >> On Oct 20, 2010, at 11:26 AM, Hilton Medeiros >> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 10:58:42 -0400 >>> Max Countryman wrote: >>> >>> > That is fine unless the Python development team has decide that >>> > python3 will not become python. >>> > >>> > Python 2.7.x will be maintained for quite some time. (In excess of >>> > four more years.) Even after it is dropped in the future there's no >>> > indication that the python3 binary is intended to become the python >>> > binary. >>> > >>> > The link I posted earlier to the thread on the Python mailing list >>> > seems to indicate the opposite. >>> >>> A 'python' binary doesn't and won't ever exist, it is only a >>> symlink, Max. > > Since you have seemed to miss my previous post. I'll post again! > > Really please, please don't top post. > http://www.river.com/users/share/etiquette/ Fucking hell! Can we stop with this constant nagging on the list? It doesn't help (as you can see), you waste 1926 people's time with the message (yes, this list has this many subscribers, and it is soon to be one less), and it just doesn't need to be said. I'm sure you made it through the message content just fine, even with the top post. Things that piss list subscribers (or at least me) off: * Bitching about top posting * Repeated posts containing no new information * More than two emails without either party doing anything except having a public argument * Not understanding the subject of an email and still responding (several emails in this thread have done so...) * Changing the topic without changing the subject * Voting on something that is not a vote So you don't piss other subscribers off, if you want to bitch at/about me, please do it off-list. Getting off my soapbox now, -Dan (the Arch Developer)
Re: [arch-general] Python 3 Rationale?
On 10/20/2010 11:45 AM, maxc wrote: There is an excellent post by Guido here, Hilton: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2008-February/011910.html Guido seems to favor using /usr/bin/python3.0 or /usr/bin/python3 and /usr/bin/python as symlinks to the respective versions of Python. 'Perhaps we should only install "python3.0" and not "python".' We're not here to discussion semantics ofc. :) There is a much broader concern which I hope we can address through friendly discourse. On Oct 20, 2010, at 11:26 AM, Hilton Medeiros wrote: On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 10:58:42 -0400 Max Countryman wrote: > That is fine unless the Python development team has decide that > python3 will not become python. > > Python 2.7.x will be maintained for quite some time. (In excess of > four more years.) Even after it is dropped in the future there's no > indication that the python3 binary is intended to become the python > binary. > > The link I posted earlier to the thread on the Python mailing list > seems to indicate the opposite. A 'python' binary doesn't and won't ever exist, it is only a symlink, Max. Since you have seemed to miss my previous post. I'll post again! Really please, please don't top post. http://www.river.com/users/share/etiquette/
[arch-general] Odd message on boot
Been seeing a strange message recently on boot. Seems to have only appeared in the last few weeks. 'Unknown group "netdev" in message bus configuration file' Anyone know what's causing it and/or how to get rid of it? Thanks, DR
Re: [arch-general] Python 3 Rationale?
There is an excellent post by Guido here, Hilton: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2008-February/011910.html Guido seems to favor using /usr/bin/python3.0 or /usr/bin/python3 and /usr/bin/python as symlinks to the respective versions of Python. 'Perhaps we should only install "python3.0" and not "python".' We're not here to discussion semantics ofc. :) There is a much broader concern which I hope we can address through friendly discourse. On Oct 20, 2010, at 11:26 AM, Hilton Medeiros wrote: On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 10:58:42 -0400 Max Countryman wrote: > That is fine unless the Python development team has decide that > python3 will not become python. > > Python 2.7.x will be maintained for quite some time. (In excess of > four more years.) Even after it is dropped in the future there's no > indication that the python3 binary is intended to become the python > binary. > > The link I posted earlier to the thread on the Python mailing list > seems to indicate the opposite. A 'python' binary doesn't and won't ever exist, it is only a symlink, Max.
Re: [arch-general] Python 3 Rationale?
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 10:58:42 -0400 Max Countryman wrote: > That is fine unless the Python development team has decide that > python3 will not become python. > > Python 2.7.x will be maintained for quite some time. (In excess of > four more years.) Even after it is dropped in the future there's no > indication that the python3 binary is intended to become the python > binary. > > The link I posted earlier to the thread on the Python mailing list > seems to indicate the opposite. A 'python' binary doesn't and won't ever exist, it is only a symlink, Max.
Re: [arch-general] Python 3 Rationale?
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 11:16, Armando M. Baratti wrote: > Em 20-10-2010 05:24, Stefano Z. escreveu: >> >> anyone know if reportlab does work with python3 ? >> > > No, reportlab doesn't work with python3. > Neither Django, nor Twisted. > > As well the modules below are incompatible with python3 (to mention a few): > - PyGTK2 > - Pyjamas > - Kiwi > - Beaker > - Cheetah > - CherryPy > - nose > - Paste > - numpy > - PyChecker > - pycrypto > - egenix utilities (used by many db connectors) > - psycopg > - couchdbkit > - Elixir > - MySQL-python > - PyMySQL > - PyDB2 > > And many, many more. > It'll be a long time for many of these modules be converted (rewritten in > some cases) to python3. > > It was a smart move from the standpoint of package management, but from the > point of view of a developer... > > Armando > You do realize that python 2 is not being taken away, right?
Re: [arch-general] Python 3 Rationale?
Em 20-10-2010 05:24, Stefano Z. escreveu: anyone know if reportlab does work with python3 ? No, reportlab doesn't work with python3. Neither Django, nor Twisted. As well the modules below are incompatible with python3 (to mention a few): - PyGTK2 - Pyjamas - Kiwi - Beaker - Cheetah - CherryPy - nose - Paste - numpy - PyChecker - pycrypto - egenix utilities (used by many db connectors) - psycopg - couchdbkit - Elixir - MySQL-python - PyMySQL - PyDB2 And many, many more. It'll be a long time for many of these modules be converted (rewritten in some cases) to python3. It was a smart move from the standpoint of package management, but from the point of view of a developer... Armando
Re: [arch-general] Python 3 Rationale?
On 10/20/2010 10:58 AM, Max Countryman wrote: That is fine unless the Python development team has decide that python3 will not become python. Python 2.7.x will be maintained for quite some time. (In excess of four more years.) Even after it is dropped in the future there's no indication that the python3 binary is intended to become the python binary. The link I posted earlier to the thread on the Python mailing list seems to indicate the opposite. On Oct 20, 2010, at 10:32, C Anthony Risinger wrote: I think what Arch is doing is perfectly reasonable; if you, as a developer, or even a user, run the `python` binary, you should not expect any assurances, as you are making assumptions about the target environment. If your app requires a particular major or minor version to operate correctly, then make this clear in the shebang, throw an exception, etc... imo, catering to sluggish apps that are not py3k compatible and not active enough to even acknowledge the onset of py3k, is a waste of time. Please don't top post. http://www.river.com/users/share/etiquette/
Re: [arch-general] Python 3 Rationale?
That is fine unless the Python development team has decide that python3 will not become python. Python 2.7.x will be maintained for quite some time. (In excess of four more years.) Even after it is dropped in the future there's no indication that the python3 binary is intended to become the python binary. The link I posted earlier to the thread on the Python mailing list seems to indicate the opposite. On Oct 20, 2010, at 10:32, C Anthony Risinger wrote: > I think what Arch is doing is perfectly reasonable; if you, as a > developer, or even a user, run the `python` binary, you should not > expect any assurances, as you are making assumptions about the target > environment. If your app requires a particular major or minor version > to operate correctly, then make this clear in the shebang, throw an > exception, etc... imo, catering to sluggish apps that are not py3k > compatible and not active enough to even acknowledge the onset of > py3k, is a waste of time.
Re: [arch-general] Python 3 Rationale?
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 9:14 AM, Max Countryman wrote: > > But is that what Python development has decided? I'm not sure what they have recommended. Ultimately it's up to the distros to decide such things; I have seen that written more then once by BFDL and friends. I think what Arch is doing is perfectly reasonable; if you, as a developer, or even a user, run the `python` binary, you should not expect any assurances, as you are making assumptions about the target environment. If your app requires a particular major or minor version to operate correctly, then make this clear in the shebang, throw an exception, etc... imo, catering to sluggish apps that are not py3k compatible and not active enough to even acknowledge the onset of py3k, is a waste of time. C Anthony
Re: [arch-general] Python 3 Rationale?
But is that what Python development has decided? On Oct 20, 2010, at 10:05, C Anthony Risinger wrote: > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 9:03 AM, C Anthony Risinger wrote: >> >> i like the python2.7, python2, python3.1, python3, etc, scheme... i >> think this makes it very easy for developers to select the specific >> interpreter they need, if any. i hope this trend becomes/is defacto. >> if you are just running `python`, you should be prepared for the >> environment ambiguity it entails. > > beh, i meant to add that the `python` name should always link to the > latest release; i don't believe in catering to 'the way it is now'. > > C Anthony
Re: [arch-general] Python 3 Rationale?
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 9:03 AM, C Anthony Risinger wrote: > > i like the python2.7, python2, python3.1, python3, etc, scheme... i > think this makes it very easy for developers to select the specific > interpreter they need, if any. i hope this trend becomes/is defacto. > if you are just running `python`, you should be prepared for the > environment ambiguity it entails. beh, i meant to add that the `python` name should always link to the latest release; i don't believe in catering to 'the way it is now'. C Anthony
Re: [arch-general] Python 3 Rationale?
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Hilton Medeiros wrote: > On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 04:31:17 + (UTC) > Mithrandir wrote: > >> Max Countryman me.com> writes: >> >> > >> > > I failed to find a reference, but I seem to remember the Python >> > > team >> deciding at some point that they >> > intended to keep the name "python" for the Python 2.X binaries >> > perpetually, >> and require Python 3.X to be >> > invoked as "python3". Arch might be alone in making this change, and >> inconsistent with other Python distributions. >> > > EDIT: I can't find a conclusive decision but here is one >> > > discussion on the >> subject: >> http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2008-February/0... >> > >> > There is any interesting conversation taking place over at Hacker >> > News: >> http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1808840 >> > >> > >> >> >> Ha ha! We posted at virtually the same time! (Or not...) :D >> > > HackerNews, Slashdot, ...: > - Someone post an announcement with 10 lines; > - They read it (or not) and think that that is all the information > behind the story; > - They furiously start typing the first thing that pops in their mind; > - By the time you (Mithrandir, in this case) posted a more in-depth > post, the majority had already run to the next news. > > Also, the... bitching there is completely nonsense. I can't believe > they know Linux or even python well enough judging by what they say > about developing _difficulties_ because of this move. > > AFAIK, with python is easy as hell to build a local/virtual environment > for any python version... I don't get it. Anyway, nothing to see there > for this post, sadly. > > Congratulations to Allan, devs and tus for the move! yeah, concur... ultimately i've had few problems; the couple i did have with pyjamas/pyjs i was able to fix pretty quickly. it's amusing sensing the hostility of some comments around the net; personally it just seems like the same old same old... following upstream. i like the python2.7, python2, python3.1, python3, etc, scheme... i think this makes it very easy for developers to select the specific interpreter they need, if any. i hope this trend becomes/is defacto. if you are just running `python`, you should be prepared for the environment ambiguity it entails. C Anthony
Re: [arch-general] Python 3 Rationale?
I think that my only concern at this point is how the Python development team sees the future of the binary: if the python and python3 convention is kept I worry about the ease of portability apropos to development under Arch. For further in-depth discussion of the overall move the comments of the post on HN are excellent and illustrate clearly both sides. On Oct 20, 2010, at 9:52, Hilton Medeiros wrote: > On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 04:31:17 + (UTC) > Mithrandir wrote: > >> Max Countryman me.com> writes: >> >>> I failed to find a reference, but I seem to remember the Python team >> deciding at some point that they >>> intended to keep the name "python" for the Python 2.X binaries >>> perpetually, >> and require Python 3.X to be >>> invoked as "python3". Arch might be alone in making this change, and >> inconsistent with other Python distributions. EDIT: I can't find a conclusive decision but here is one discussion on the >> subject: >> http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2008-February/0... >>> >>> There is any interesting conversation taking place over at Hacker >>> News: >> http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1808840 >>> >>> >> >> >> Ha ha! We posted at virtually the same time! (Or not...) :D >> > > HackerNews, Slashdot, ...: > - Someone post an announcement with 10 lines; > - They read it (or not) and think that that is all the information > behind the story; > - They furiously start typing the first thing that pops in their mind; > - By the time you (Mithrandir, in this case) posted a more in-depth > post, the majority had already run to the next news. > > Also, the... bitching there is completely nonsense. I can't believe > they know Linux or even python well enough judging by what they say > about developing _difficulties_ because of this move. > > AFAIK, with python is easy as hell to build a local/virtual environment > for any python version... I don't get it. Anyway, nothing to see there > for this post, sadly. > > Congratulations to Allan, devs and tus for the move! > > Cheers, > Hilton
Re: [arch-general] Python 3 Rationale?
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 04:31:17 + (UTC) Mithrandir wrote: > Max Countryman me.com> writes: > > > > > > I failed to find a reference, but I seem to remember the Python > > > team > deciding at some point that they > > intended to keep the name "python" for the Python 2.X binaries > > perpetually, > and require Python 3.X to be > > invoked as "python3". Arch might be alone in making this change, and > inconsistent with other Python distributions. > > > EDIT: I can't find a conclusive decision but here is one > > > discussion on the > subject: > http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2008-February/0... > > > > There is any interesting conversation taking place over at Hacker > > News: > http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1808840 > > > > > > > Ha ha! We posted at virtually the same time! (Or not...) :D > HackerNews, Slashdot, ...: - Someone post an announcement with 10 lines; - They read it (or not) and think that that is all the information behind the story; - They furiously start typing the first thing that pops in their mind; - By the time you (Mithrandir, in this case) posted a more in-depth post, the majority had already run to the next news. Also, the... bitching there is completely nonsense. I can't believe they know Linux or even python well enough judging by what they say about developing _difficulties_ because of this move. AFAIK, with python is easy as hell to build a local/virtual environment for any python version... I don't get it. Anyway, nothing to see there for this post, sadly. Congratulations to Allan, devs and tus for the move! Cheers, Hilton
Re: [arch-general] [aur-general] Libreoffice in AUR
Am Thu, 14 Oct 2010 14:19:26 +0300 schrieb Ionuț Bîru : > somebody already uploaded a new build, libreoffice-new. the name is > kinda stupid and it makes me want to delete it. I'd second this. It also seems to be a duplicate to libreoffice-bin. And libreoffice-build should be deleted, too, renamed to libreoffice and updated to the latest beta. Btw., libreoffice-new is missing the "-beta" in $pkgver. Why I'm crossposting this to aur-general and arch-general is this article: http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/OpenOffice-Council-asks-LibreOffice-makers-to-resign-1110236.html It's conceivable that OpenOffice and LibreOffice won't cooperate and will be developed independently from each other. So they most likely will differ and provide different features rather soon. So I'd like to see LibreOffice in [extra] besides OpenOffice. I think LibreOffice is or will soon be too important to just have it in AUR or [community]. Nevertheless regardless whether LibreOffice is in AUR, [community] or [extra] there should be clean packages and naming schemes which comply with the packaging and naming schemes for OpenOffice. Ensuring this is another reason to put it officially to [extra]. Heiko
Re: [arch-general] no python3 package?
> Those are AUR packages, you need to ask their maintainers in the AUR to > make the necessary changes. Learn2read, please. I was given the impression that this was going to be solved with the python package: On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Allan McRae wrote: >Hmm... I probably should have added a version to the provides line in the >python package. Currently it only provides "python3" and not a version so >the versioned deps in those AUR packages are causing issues. I'll get >around to that before this exits [testing] Note the part: "I'll get around to that before this exits [testing]"...
Re: [arch-general] Python 3 Rationale?
Oh is there another thread on this list? My apologies if so! I just joined earlier yesterday. :) On Oct 20, 2010, at 12:31 AM, Mithrandir wrote: > Ha ha! We posted at virtually the same time! (Or not...) :D
Re: [arch-general] no python3 package?
On 20-10-2010 05:35, Angus wrote: >>> Hmm... I probably should have added a version to the provides line in the >>> python package. Currently it only provides "python3" and not a version so >>> the versioned deps in those AUR packages are causing issues. I'll get >>> around to that before this exits [testing] >> >> Um... did you perhaps not get around to it? >> >> :: Replace python3 with extra/python? [Y/n] >> error: failed to prepare transaction (could not satisfy dependencies) >> :: pyqt-py3and2: requires python3>=3.1 >> :: sip-py3and2: requires python3>=3.1 > > ...anybody? > Those are AUR packages, you need to ask their maintainers in the AUR to make the necessary changes. -- Mauro Santos
Re: [arch-general] Python 3 Rationale?
Max Countryman me.com> writes: > > > I failed to find a reference, but I seem to remember the Python team deciding at some point that they > intended to keep the name "python" for the Python 2.X binaries perpetually, and require Python 3.X to be > invoked as "python3". Arch might be alone in making this change, and inconsistent with other Python distributions. > > EDIT: I can't find a conclusive decision but here is one discussion on the subject: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2008-February/0... > > There is any interesting conversation taking place over at Hacker News: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1808840 > > Ha ha! We posted at virtually the same time! (Or not...) :D
Re: [arch-general] Python 3 Rationale?
anyone know if reportlab does work with python3 ?
