Re: packages: authconfig/authconfig.spec - fix python packaging, now things exe...
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 5:47 PM, Jacek Konieczny wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 06:40:53PM +0300, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
>> it doesn't behave here so:
>>
>> here it creates .pyc only for imported modules, if invoked via
>> #!/shebang, no .pyc is created for the script itself:
> [...]
>> > In case if %{_bindir} or %{_sbindir} - no script should be named *.py
>> > there (actually there are some, but they should be fixed).
>> >
>> any explanation why (not that i have against)
>
> The problem is, that if script name is "something.py", then
> if any other python script in the same directory does
> 'import something' (on purpose or because of a name collision) the
> script will be compiled to pyc.
>
> There should be no *.py files in %{_bindir}. If a script is supposed to
> be importable, then it should be stored in %{py_sitescriptdir}, and only
> a wrapper script should be kept in %{_bindir}.
>
> The wrapper can be something like that:
>
> #!/usr/bin/python
> import something
> somethig.run()
>
> or
>
> #!/bin/sh
> exec /usr/bin/python -m something "$@"
>
> Whatever the module expects.
python3.spec simply creates aliases in /etc/shrc.d.
regards,
w
___
pld-devel-en mailing list
pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org
http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: th stable (Re: gimp 2.8.0 rc1, gimp plugins)
On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 09:59:51PM +0200, Tomasz Pala wrote: > That might explain PLD deterioration. To whom it may concern (but in Russian): http://lists.altlinux.org/pipermail/devel/2012-April/193673.html http://lists.altlinux.org/pipermail/devel/2012-April/193855.html Igor is thinking -- and working hard -- on repository quality and automation for quite a few years already. Hope that some thoughts expressed or collected by him are useful to PLD either. PS: as we say here, "it's the season of lacking vitamins". :) -- WBR, Michael Shigorin -- Linux.Kiev http://www.linux.kiev.ua/ ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: th stable (Re: gimp 2.8.0 rc1, gimp plugins)
On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 11:56:08 +0200, Jan Rękorajski wrote: >> I assume he gains only one thing - he can commit what he wants to have >> and made everyone else fixing related stuff. Such 'solution' was the >> right of release manager so far. > > Please stop playing stupid. Please stop screwing the rules. > What related stuff? Plugins mentioned in initial mail? > We are talking about *gimp* here, a bitmap graphics *program*, > not a critical lib, not even _a_ lib, there is only just a few > plugins for it. Sure, we might remove them. It's only just a few packages after all, isn't it? Nobody uses them. They've appeared in our CVS by some magic. > I don't see a problem with 2.8rc1 on HEAD, I see a problem with disobedience for shit. All the thread passed without a single argument, any rationale or profit. If that is the way PLD is supposed to be developed, we are indeed wasting our time for nothing. -- Tomasz Pala ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: th stable (Re: gimp 2.8.0 rc1, gimp plugins)
On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 10:39:31 +0100, Artur Wroblewski wrote: >> Ra and Ac was detached from HEAD when they were released (i.e. frozen). >> Th is not. >> You keep avoiding one simple answer: why don't you want to use DEVEL? >> This is the tag designated _exactly_ for this purpose. > > 1. DEVEL is for unstable versions - we are talking about RC. HEAD is for stable versions - we are talking about RC. > 2. the release announcement contains the following statement > > The changes in GIMP 2.8rc1 since 2.7.5 are mostly not user-visible. We > merely Yes, since 2.7.5, not 2.6. > 3. it does not look like there are major issues with 2.8rc1. I think that this decision should be made by authors, not us. Stop fixing the world please. > 4. on top of that, i have tested it with my workflows before sending > the very first email proposing the merge on HEAD. As above - leave the decision for the authors. Just for the sake - let people blame them in case of anything. > 5. babl and gegl are on HEAD anyway. They shouldn't. But since PLD is in 'always broken' state - why do you ask anyway? > therefore, imho, it is worth _starting_ upgrading That's what DEVEL was made for. > (but if you send it to builders, then it is your stupidity). And if such 'stupidity' is required due to any other reason (like new libpng), who's going to be responsible? > i was quite often putting rc versions on HEAD (depending on a project > progress). > it was not a problem until now. it seems like some people want some more > strict > rules about th development - iron them out and propose them on this > list. if not, then we are wasting each other time. That might explain PLD deterioration. -- Tomasz Pala ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: th stable (Re: gimp 2.8.0 rc1, gimp plugins)
2012/4/21 Bartosz Świątek : > W dniu 21 kwietnia 2012 13:14 użytkownik Artur Wroblewski > napisał: >> 2012/4/21 Bartosz Świątek : >> [...] >>> "Stable is boring"(tm). >> >> well, why you have switched from the Ac and jumped on >> the development distro line? you know, Ac was supposed >> to be the stable version with multiple releases until it got >> abandoned by people like you. >> >> i have proposed TH-STABLE tag. not enough for you? then create >> new stable line. it is simple like that. > > No. HEAD is your proposed TH-STABLE, and DEVEL is for alphas, betas and RCs ;) > It's as simple as that. there is no direct mapping between th ready or th test and CVS HEAD. check by yourself. regards, w ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: th stable (Re: gimp 2.8.0 rc1, gimp plugins)
W dniu 21 kwietnia 2012 13:14 użytkownik Artur Wroblewski napisał: > 2012/4/21 Bartosz Świątek : > [...] >> "Stable is boring"™. > > well, why you have switched from the Ac and jumped on > the development distro line? you know, Ac was supposed > to be the stable version with multiple releases until it got > abandoned by people like you. > > i have proposed TH-STABLE tag. not enough for you? then create > new stable line. it is simple like that. No. HEAD is your proposed TH-STABLE, and DEVEL is for alphas, betas and RCs ;) It's as simple as that. -- "I'm living proof if you do one thing right in your career, you can coast for a long time. A LONG time." -Guy Kawasaki ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: th stable (Re: gimp 2.8.0 rc1, gimp plugins)
2012/4/21 Bartosz Świątek : [...] > "Stable is boring"™. well, why you have switched from the Ac and jumped on the development distro line? you know, Ac was supposed to be the stable version with multiple releases until it got abandoned by people like you. i have proposed TH-STABLE tag. not enough for you? then create new stable line. it is simple like that. regards, w ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: th stable (Re: gimp 2.8.0 rc1, gimp plugins)
W dniu 21 kwietnia 2012 12:11 użytkownik Bartosz Taudul napisał: > 2012/4/21 Bartosz Świątek : >> It may seem unbelievable to you, but there are people who use >> *uncritical* *programs* for living. How absurd is that! Right? > I am thinking about doing some changes to apache. Or maybe mysql. No, > python would be the best one to modify. Think "breaks everything" > changes. I'm sure it's OK with you guys, as *I* don't need these > *programs*. These are not even libraries, just programs. So no problem > there, right baggins? Or maybe cups. Cups is just a *program*, a worthless *printing* program. Who uses printers these days anyway? ;) "Stable is boring"™. -- "I'm living proof if you do one thing right in your career, you can coast for a long time. A LONG time." -Guy Kawasaki ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: th stable (Re: gimp 2.8.0 rc1, gimp plugins)
2012/4/21 Bartosz Świątek : > It may seem unbelievable to you, but there are people who use > *uncritical* *programs* for living. How absurd is that! Right? I am thinking about doing some changes to apache. Or maybe mysql. No, python would be the best one to modify. Think "breaks everything" changes. I'm sure it's OK with you guys, as *I* don't need these *programs*. These are not even libraries, just programs. So no problem there, right baggins? wolf ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: th stable (Re: gimp 2.8.0 rc1, gimp plugins)
W dniu 21 kwietnia 2012 11:56 użytkownik Jan Rękorajski napisał: > On Sat, 21 Apr 2012, Tomasz Pala wrote: > >> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 23:54:25 +0300, Caleb Maclennan wrote: >> >> > Artur ... I'm still not clear on what you GAIN by using HEAD instead >> > of DEVEL? In spite of the name, isn't HEAD basically functioning as >> > th-stable (plus some mess)? >> >> I assume he gains only one thing - he can commit what he wants to have >> and made everyone else fixing related stuff. Such 'solution' was the >> right of release manager so far. > > Please stop playing stupid. What related stuff? > We are talking about *gimp* here, a bitmap graphics *program*, > not a critical lib, not even _a_ lib, there is only just a few > plugins for it. It may seem unbelievable to you, but there are people who use *uncritical* *programs* for living. How absurd is that! Right? -- "I'm living proof if you do one thing right in your career, you can coast for a long time. A LONG time." -Guy Kawasaki ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: th stable (Re: gimp 2.8.0 rc1, gimp plugins)
W dniu 21 kwietnia 2012 11:39 użytkownik Artur Wroblewski napisał: > On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Tomasz Pala wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 22:07:14 +0100, Artur Wroblewski wrote: >> I really really am confused now. You're pretending your side of the story is how it's always been done in PLD. It's really not. HEAD was always reserved for stable package releases. >>> >>> right... especially in Ra and Ac times... >> >> Ra and Ac was detached from HEAD when they were released (i.e. frozen). >> Th is not. >> You keep avoiding one simple answer: why don't you want to use DEVEL? >> This is the tag designated _exactly_ for this purpose. > > 1. DEVEL is for unstable versions - we are talking about RC. And RC is stable? ;) > > 2. the release announcement contains the following statement > > The changes in GIMP 2.8rc1 since 2.7.5 are mostly not > user-visible. We merely > updated the code to work with newer versions of GEGL and babl, fixed GFig > rendering issues and used all the translation updates we got to the point. > > 3. it does not look like there are major issues with 2.8rc1. Justin Bieber looks like a girl. You see, looks can be deceiving. > > 4. on top of that, i have tested it with my workflows before sending > the very first > email proposing the merge on HEAD. Ok, no comment. > > 5. babl and gegl are on HEAD anyway. > > therefore, imho, it is worth _starting_ upgrading (but if you send it > to builders, then > it is your stupidity). > > i was quite often putting rc versions on HEAD (depending on a project > progress). Then you were quite often bending the rules, weren't you? -- "I'm living proof if you do one thing right in your career, you can coast for a long time. A LONG time." -Guy Kawasaki ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: th stable (Re: gimp 2.8.0 rc1, gimp plugins)
On Sat, 21 Apr 2012, Tomasz Pala wrote: > On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 23:54:25 +0300, Caleb Maclennan wrote: > > > Artur ... I'm still not clear on what you GAIN by using HEAD instead > > of DEVEL? In spite of the name, isn't HEAD basically functioning as > > th-stable (plus some mess)? > > I assume he gains only one thing - he can commit what he wants to have > and made everyone else fixing related stuff. Such 'solution' was the > right of release manager so far. Please stop playing stupid. What related stuff? We are talking about *gimp* here, a bitmap graphics *program*, not a critical lib, not even _a_ lib, there is only just a few plugins for it. poldek:/all-avail> what-requires libgimp*-2.0.so.0()(64bit) 11 package(s) found: gimp-2.6.12-3.x86_64 gimp-aa-2.6.12-3.x86_64 gimp-libs-2.6.12-3.x86_64 gimp-plugin-dds-2.0.7-1.x86_64 gimp-plugin-gtkam-0.1.17-2.x86_64 gimp-plugin-gutenprint-5.2.7-5.x86_64 gimp-plugin-lqr-0.6.1-1.x86_64 gimp-plugin-ufraw-0.18-4.x86_64 gimp-svg-2.6.12-3.x86_64 sane-frontends-1.0.14-1.x86_64 xsane-0.998-5.x86_64 I don't see a problem with 2.8rc1 on HEAD, especially when gimp.org officially stated EOL on 2.6 line. -- Jan Rękorajski | PLD/Linux SysAdm | http://www.pld-linux.org/ bagginsmimuw.edu.pl bagginspld-linux.org ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: th stable (Re: gimp 2.8.0 rc1, gimp plugins)
On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Artur Wroblewski wrote: > 1. DEVEL is for unstable versions - we are talking about RC. If this Release Candidate is stable, then why is it a Release Candidate and not the final version? Please tell us. > 2. the release announcement contains the following statement > > The changes in GIMP 2.8rc1 since 2.7.5 are mostly not > user-visible. We merely > updated the code to work with newer versions of GEGL and babl, fixed GFig > rendering issues and used all the translation updates we got to the point. Oh, so we might as well have 2.7.5 on HEAD? Why not 2.7.1? > 3. it does not look like there are major issues with 2.8rc1. http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0110.1/0932.html I am sure 2.4.11 also didn't look like it would have any major issues. > 4. on top of that, i have tested it with my workflows Oh wow. Please go away and be back when you test MY workflow and ensure it works flawlessly. > therefore, imho, it is worth _starting_ upgrading Then do it on DEVEL and merge to HEAD when the stable version is released and stop trolling already. wolf ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: th stable (Re: gimp 2.8.0 rc1, gimp plugins)
On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Tomasz Pala wrote: > On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 22:07:14 +0100, Artur Wroblewski wrote: > >>> I really really am confused now. You're pretending your side of the >>> story is how it's always been done in PLD. It's really not. HEAD was >>> always reserved for stable package releases. >> >> right... especially in Ra and Ac times... > > Ra and Ac was detached from HEAD when they were released (i.e. frozen). > Th is not. > You keep avoiding one simple answer: why don't you want to use DEVEL? > This is the tag designated _exactly_ for this purpose. 1. DEVEL is for unstable versions - we are talking about RC. 2. the release announcement contains the following statement The changes in GIMP 2.8rc1 since 2.7.5 are mostly not user-visible. We merely updated the code to work with newer versions of GEGL and babl, fixed GFig rendering issues and used all the translation updates we got to the point. 3. it does not look like there are major issues with 2.8rc1. 4. on top of that, i have tested it with my workflows before sending the very first email proposing the merge on HEAD. 5. babl and gegl are on HEAD anyway. therefore, imho, it is worth _starting_ upgrading (but if you send it to builders, then it is your stupidity). i was quite often putting rc versions on HEAD (depending on a project progress). it was not a problem until now. it seems like some people want some more strict rules about th development - iron them out and propose them on this list. if not, then we are wasting each other time. regards, w ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: th stable (Re: gimp 2.8.0 rc1, gimp plugins)
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 23:54:25 +0300, Caleb Maclennan wrote: > Artur ... I'm still not clear on what you GAIN by using HEAD instead > of DEVEL? In spite of the name, isn't HEAD basically functioning as > th-stable (plus some mess)? I assume he gains only one thing - he can commit what he wants to have and made everyone else fixing related stuff. Such 'solution' was the right of release manager so far. -- Tomasz Pala ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: th stable (Re: gimp 2.8.0 rc1, gimp plugins)
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 22:07:14 +0100, Artur Wroblewski wrote: >> I really really am confused now. You're pretending your side of the >> story is how it's always been done in PLD. It's really not. HEAD was >> always reserved for stable package releases. > > right... especially in Ra and Ac times... Ra and Ac was detached from HEAD when they were released (i.e. frozen). Th is not. You keep avoiding one simple answer: why don't you want to use DEVEL? This is the tag designated _exactly_ for this purpose. -- Tomasz Pala ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
