On 8/2/20 6:22 AM, Walter Dnes wrote:
On Sat, Aug 01, 2020 at 11:08:47PM -0400, james wrote
On 8/1/20 12:10 PM, Walter Dnes wrote:
So a "palemoon-bin" ebuild is possible. But is it necessary? If
you pull down and extract the precompiled tarball to your home dir, it
can be set to check fo
On Sat, Aug 01, 2020 at 11:08:47PM -0400, james wrote
> On 8/1/20 12:10 PM, Walter Dnes wrote:
> >
> >So a "palemoon-bin" ebuild is possible. But is it necessary? If
> > you pull down and extract the precompiled tarball to your home dir, it
> > can be set to check for, and do, updates (as lo
Hello,
On Sat, 01 Aug 2020, james wrote:
>On 8/1/20 7:04 PM, David Haller wrote:
>> On Sat, 01 Aug 2020, Walter Dnes wrote:
>> [..]
>> > So a "palemoon-bin" ebuild is possible.
>>
>> There's already one in the palemoon overlay.
>
>This is what you are referring to?
>
>www-client/palemoon-bin [2
On 8/1/20 7:04 PM, David Haller wrote:
Hello,
On Sat, 01 Aug 2020, Walter Dnes wrote:
[..]
So a "palemoon-bin" ebuild is possible.
There's already one in the palemoon overlay.
-dnh
This is what you are referring to?
www-client/palemoon-bin [2]
Available versions: 28.11.0^ms {startup-
On 8/1/20 12:10 PM, Walter Dnes wrote:
On Sat, Aug 01, 2020 at 01:05:30AM -0400, Walter Dnes wrote
I have another idea. We already have firefox-bin and libreoffice-bin
ebuilds where the compiled tarball is pulled down from upstream, and
untarred. Would this work on Pale Moon? I guess it c
Hello,
On Sat, 01 Aug 2020, Walter Dnes wrote:
[..]
> So a "palemoon-bin" ebuild is possible.
There's already one in the palemoon overlay.
-dnh
--
"If Pacman had affected us as kids we'd be running around in dark rooms,
munching pills and listening to repetitive music." -- Marcus Brigstocke
On Sat, Aug 01, 2020 at 01:05:30AM -0400, Walter Dnes wrote
>
> I have another idea. We already have firefox-bin and libreoffice-bin
> ebuilds where the compiled tarball is pulled down from upstream, and
> untarred. Would this work on Pale Moon? I guess it comes down to
> whether or not pytho
On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 06:09:53PM -0400, james wrote
> and it builds, robustly and without errors, but is still dependent on
> python 2.7.
>
>
> so your details do result in palemoon 28.11.0 without python 2.7
> attendances?
Python 2.7 is still a build-time dependency. But rather than bei
On 7/31/20 9:40 AM, Walter Dnes wrote:
On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 08:01:33PM -0400, james wrote
Me, palemoon is my fav browser and it seems to be long term stuck on
python 2.7.. Any suggests on a more secure, feature rich browser
other than palemoon would be interesting to me to at least test.
On 7/31/20 9:50 AM, Walter Dnes wrote:
On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 08:01:33PM -0400, james wrote
Me, palemoon is my fav browser and it seems to be long term stuck on
python 2.7.. Any suggests on a more secure, feature rich browser
other than palemoon would be interesting to me to at least test.
On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 08:01:33PM -0400, james wrote
> Me, palemoon is my fav browser and it seems to be long term stuck on
> python 2.7.. Any suggests on a more secure, feature rich browser
> other than palemoon would be interesting to me to at least test.
Pale Moon is a Firefox fork an
On 7/29/20 1:21 PM, Simon Thelen wrote:
[2020-07-29 13:11] Philip Webb
Hi,
I've removed every other pkg which might require Python-2.7,
but am stuck with this :
root:605 ~> emerge -cpv python:2.7
Calculating dependencies... done!
dev-lang/python-2.7.18-r1 pulled in by:
dev-lang/
200729 i.Dark_Templar wrote:
> 29.07.2020 20:11, Philip Webb пишет:
>> I've removed every other pkg which might require Python-2.7,
>> but am stuck with this :
>>
>> root:605 ~> emerge -cpv python:2.7
>> Calculating dependencies... done!
>> dev-lang/python-2.7.18-r1 pulled in by:
>> dev-
[2020-07-29 13:11] Philip Webb
Hi,
> I've removed every other pkg which might require Python-2.7,
> but am stuck with this :
>
> root:605 ~> emerge -cpv python:2.7
>
> Calculating dependencies... done!
> dev-lang/python-2.7.18-r1 pulled in by:
> dev-lang/spidermonkey-60.5.2_p0-r4 require
29.07.2020 20:11, Philip Webb пишет:
> I've removed every other pkg which might require Python-2.7,
> but am stuck with this :
>
> root:605 ~> emerge -cpv python:2.7
>
> Calculating dependencies... done!
> dev-lang/python-2.7.18-r1 pulled in by:
> dev-lang/spidermonkey-60.5.2_p0-r4 requ
I've removed every other pkg which might require Python-2.7,
but am stuck with this :
root:605 ~> emerge -cpv python:2.7
Calculating dependencies... done!
dev-lang/python-2.7.18-r1 pulled in by:
dev-lang/spidermonkey-60.5.2_p0-r4 requires
>=dev-lang/python-2.7.5-r2:2.7[ncurses,sqlite,s
el 2020-05-04 a las 21:56 antlists escribió:
> Another app that's 2.7 only is the current version of lilypond. The new
> dev version I think can run without python2, but certainly building the
> stable version demands it. I *think* if you get the pre-compiled binary
> the current version can
On 04/05/2020 20:57, Dale wrote:
Alessandro Barbieri wrote:
At least
gimp-help
scribus
nut
fbpanel
are Python2 only, didn't check stuff from overlays
That makes sense. I can see where some can work with old and new python
but some appeared to be still stuck on the old 2.7. Guess I'll have t
Alessandro Barbieri wrote:
> At least
> gimp-help
> scribus
> nut
> fbpanel
> are Python2 only, didn't check stuff from overlays
>
That makes sense. I can see where some can work with old and new python
but some appeared to be still stuck on the old 2.7. Guess I'll have to
wait since I use those
At least
gimp-help
scribus
nut
fbpanel
are Python2 only, didn't check stuff from overlays
Il Lun 4 Mag 2020, 18:31 Dale ha scritto:
> Howdy,
>
> As some know, python 2.7 is leaving the building. I'm wanting to try to
> clean it out a bit now, a little at a time if needed. I found some
> comman
Howdy,
As some know, python 2.7 is leaving the building. I'm wanting to try to
clean it out a bit now, a little at a time if needed. I found some
commands on -dev that shows what still depends on python 2.7. Thing is,
I think it is listing packages that *may* use 2.7 but can or is set to
use a
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Bill Kenworthy wrote:
> Quick clarification on the python 2.7 update - do I eselect the new
> python version before running python-updater?
>
Yes
Quick clarification on the python 2.7 update - do I eselect the new
python version before running python-updater?
The reason I ask is some of my machines seem to have auto-selected it,
but what is probably the most important one at the moment didnt.
BillK
Am 28.03.2011 17:41, schrieb Roman Zilka:
> KH (Mon, 28 Mar 2011 15:22:55 +0200):
>> > I do have python-2.7 and python-3.1 emerged. I just took al look in
>> > /usr/lib64/ and I can find trace of python2.4 python2.5 python2.6
>> > python2.7 python3.1 . Are those folders (2.4; 2.5; 2.6) needed anymo
KH (Mon, 28 Mar 2011 15:22:55 +0200):
> I do have python-2.7 and python-3.1 emerged. I just took al look in
> /usr/lib64/ and I can find trace of python2.4 python2.5 python2.6
> python2.7 python3.1 . Are those folders (2.4; 2.5; 2.6) needed anymore?
> If no, why are the still there?
Is there anyth
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 6:22 AM, KH wrote:
> Am 25.03.2011 05:48, schrieb Paul Hartman:
>> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 12:28 AM, Dale wrote:
>>> And if we should set python to 2.7, should we remove python-2.6? I don't
>>> think we want to break something, portage in particular. ;-)
>>
>> I have no
Am 25.03.2011 05:48, schrieb Paul Hartman:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 12:28 AM, Dale wrote:
>> And if we should set python to 2.7, should we remove python-2.6? I don't
>> think we want to break something, portage in particular. ;-)
>
> I have no trace of python-2.6 on my system at this point and
>
> > Understood and agreed. For OO I couldn't quite get up the interest to
> > start building from scratch though. Something like 450MB of things to
> > download and then what, do it again in a week or two? Not worth it for
> > my needs.
>
Did you delete the source out of your /usr/portage/distfi
On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 12:50:57 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
> > I've also been hit by the first, as I think I mentioned. As for the
> > other two, re-emerging a binary package won't help at all, because
> > it's a binary package, so you unpack it rather than rebuild it.
> > That's more a problem with u
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 08:26:10 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
>
>> > Manual means manually added to the list by python-updater, rather than
>> > using any sort of detection.
>> >
>>
>> OK, I won't bother with the many definitions of the word manual
On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 08:26:10 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
> > Manual means manually added to the list by python-updater, rather than
> > using any sort of detection.
> >
>
> OK, I won't bother with the many definitions of the word manual or how
> that effects the conversation from my end 'cause th
Le 27/03/2011 17:26, Mark Knecht a écrit :
> On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 5:44 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 14:33:14 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
>>
Aren't those manually added to the list by python-updater? So you
need to use -dmanual to prevent further rebuilding of them.
>>
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 5:44 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 14:33:14 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
>
>> > Aren't those manually added to the list by python-updater? So you
>> > need to use -dmanual to prevent further rebuilding of them.
>
>> I guess I'm not clear on the use of 'manual'
>
> File "setup.py", line 22, in
>from setuptools import setup, Extension, find_packages
> ImportError: No module named setuptools
> * ERROR: sys-libs/cracklib-2.8.16 failed (compile phase):
> * Building failed with CPython 2.7 in d
Hi,
apparently I screwed something during python update, and now
I can not fix my system. This is what I did:
emerge --sync
emerge --ask --update --deep --newuse world
At the end, I have seen:
You should run 'python-updater ${options}' to rebuild Python modules.
So I did, then "emerge --depclea
On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 14:33:14 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
> > Aren't those manually added to the list by python-updater? So you
> > need to use -dmanual to prevent further rebuilding of them.
> I guess I'm not clear on the use of 'manual' here.
It's explained in the manual page (sorry :)
Manual me
> I guess I'm not clear on the use of 'manual' here. They are
> automatically added. If they are correctly rebuilt then they shouldn't
> need to be added a second time, correct? However they are. (Over and
> over...)
>
> Basically, it is my understanding that if everything is correctly
> updated th
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 12:10:12 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
>
>> I've been through this 2.7 update process on 4 machines now. It seems
>> on all of my machines the python-updater thing is pretty much always
>> broken with respect to:
>>
>> openoff
On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 12:10:12 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
> I've been through this 2.7 update process on 4 machines now. It seems
> on all of my machines the python-updater thing is pretty much always
> broken with respect to:
>
> openoffice-bin
> boost
> emul-linux-x86-baselibs
Aren't those manual
On Saturday 26 March 2011 20:53:50 Mark Knecht wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Bill Longman
wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Mark Knecht
wrote:
>
>
> >> I had nothing linked to libmpfr.so.1 so that wasn't the root cause/
> >>
> >> In my case it seems to be driven by bug
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Bill Longman wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Mark Knecht wrote:
>> I had nothing linked to libmpfr.so.1 so that wasn't the root cause/
>>
>> In my case it seems to be driven by bugs like this:
>>
>> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=360425
>>
>> S
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Mark Knecht wrote:
>>
>> I've been through this 2.7 update process on 4 machines now. It seems
>> on all of my machines the python-updater thing is pretty much always
>> broken with respect to:
>>
>> openoffice-bin
>> boost
>> emul-linux-x86-baselibs
>>
>> No matt
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 12:22 PM, Mick wrote:
> On Saturday 26 March 2011 19:10:12 Mark Knecht wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
>> > On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 20:09:50 +0100, Stéphane Guedon wrote:
>> >> I think wicd rely on python 2.6 currently. This is my setup on my
>>
On Saturday 26 March 2011 19:10:12 Mark Knecht wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 20:09:50 +0100, Stéphane Guedon wrote:
> >> I think wicd rely on python 2.6 currently. This is my setup on my
> >> laptop ! (trying other version break networking w
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 20:09:50 +0100, Stéphane Guedon wrote:
>
>> I think wicd rely on python 2.6 currently. This is my setup on my
>> laptop ! (trying other version break networking with wicd).
>
> Wicd works fine with 2.7. There was a problem
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 20:09:50 +0100, Stéphane Guedon wrote:
> I think wicd rely on python 2.6 currently. This is my setup on my
> laptop ! (trying other version break networking with wicd).
Wicd works fine with 2.7. There was a problem when 2,7 was first
released, but that was fixed in a Wicd upda
>> > One of my machines just saw a python-2.7 update and the ebuild was
>> > good enough to remind me to run python-updater, but it didn't suggest
>> > that I run eselect python and set the active version to 2.7.
>> >
>> > Should this new version python be selected first as the active python
>> > 2
On Friday 25 March 2011 01:28:35 Dale wrote:
> Mark Knecht wrote:
> > One of my machines just saw a python-2.7 update and the ebuild was
> > good enough to remind me to run python-updater, but it didn't suggest
> > that I run eselect python and set the active version to 2.7.
> >
> > Should this ne
Paul Hartman wrote:
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 4:37 AM, Dale wrote:
Paul Hartman wrote:
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 12:28 AM, Dalewrote:
And if we should set python to 2.7, should we remove python-2.6? I don't
think we want to break something, portage in particular. ;-)
Roman Zilka wrote:
Mark Knecht (Fri, 25 Mar 2011 06:56:20 -0700):
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 2:50 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 04:37:15 -0500, Dale wrote:
Out of curiosity, how long you, or someone else, been using python
2.7?
I install 2.7 on August
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 4:37 AM, Dale wrote:
> Paul Hartman wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 12:28 AM, Dale wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> And if we should set python to 2.7, should we remove python-2.6? I don't
>>> think we want to break something, portage in particular. ;-)
>>>
>>
>> I have no trace o
Mark Knecht (Fri, 25 Mar 2011 06:56:20 -0700):
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 2:50 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 04:37:15 -0500, Dale wrote:
> >
> >> Out of curiosity, how long you, or someone else, been using python
> >> 2.7?
> >
> > I install 2.7 on August 10th and removed 2.6 on O
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 06:56:20 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
> > I installed 2.7 on August 10th and removed 2.6 on October 5th.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Neil Bothwick
>
> Do you recollect whether you ran python-updater immediately after the
> 2.7 emerge, and do you remember whether you set 2.7 as your acti
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 2:50 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 04:37:15 -0500, Dale wrote:
>
>> Out of curiosity, how long you, or someone else, been using python
>> 2.7?
>
> I install 2.7 on August 10th and removed 2.6 on October 5th.
>
>
> --
> Neil Bothwick
Do you recollect whethe
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 04:37:15 -0500, Dale wrote:
> Out of curiosity, how long you, or someone else, been using python
> 2.7?
I install 2.7 on August 10th and removed 2.6 on October 5th.
--
Neil Bothwick
Documentation: (n.) a novel sold with software, designed to entertain the
Paul Hartman wrote:
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 12:28 AM, Dale wrote:
And if we should set python to 2.7, should we remove python-2.6? I don't
think we want to break something, portage in particular. ;-)
I have no trace of python-2.6 on my system at this point and I'm
getting along jus
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 12:28 AM, Dale wrote:
> And if we should set python to 2.7, should we remove python-2.6? I don't
> think we want to break something, portage in particular. ;-)
I have no trace of python-2.6 on my system at this point and I'm
getting along just fine with 2.7 as my active
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 07:28:35PM -0500, Dale wrote:
> Mark Knecht wrote:
> > One of my machines just saw a python-2.7 update and the ebuild was
> > good enough to remind me to run python-updater, but it didn't suggest
> > that I run eselect python and set the active version to 2.7.
> >
> > Should
Mark Knecht wrote:
One of my machines just saw a python-2.7 update and the ebuild was
good enough to remind me to run python-updater, but it didn't suggest
that I run eselect python and set the active version to 2.7.
Should this new version python be selected first as the active python
2 version
One of my machines just saw a python-2.7 update and the ebuild was
good enough to remind me to run python-updater, but it didn't suggest
that I run eselect python and set the active version to 2.7.
Should this new version python be selected first as the active python
2 version and then run python-
Hi,
dev-lang/python-2.7.1 has been unmasked and with the recent autgen from
today it builds cleanly.
Is it safe to use this version as standard Python (via eselect)
when running python-updater afterwards, of course?
Many thanks for sharing your experience,
Helmut.
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 08:47:41 -0600, Dale wrote:
It's keyworded, but not masked. The recommendation, for ~arch users,
is that you have it installed but leave 2.6 as the default.
It shows this here:
[M~] dev-lang/python-3.1.1-r1 (3.1)
Isn't that masked and k
On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 08:47:41 -0600, Dale wrote:
> > It's keyworded, but not masked. The recommendation, for ~arch users,
> > is that you have it installed but leave 2.6 as the default.
> It shows this here:
>
> [M~] dev-lang/python-3.1.1-r1 (3.1)
>
> Isn't that masked and keyworded? I'm x86 he
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 06:41:02 -0600, Dale wrote:
And they devs have done so. Python 3 is masked and even keyworded. It
is a hint at least.
It's keyworded, but not masked. The recommendation, for ~arch users, is
that you have it installed but leave 2.6 as the defa
On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 06:41:02 -0600, Dale wrote:
> And they devs have done so. Python 3 is masked and even keyworded. It
> is a hint at least.
It's keyworded, but not masked. The recommendation, for ~arch users, is
that you have it installed but leave 2.6 as the default.
--
Neil Bothwick
Ag
Dale a écrit :
> Albert Hopkins wrote:
>>
>> If it were
>> buggy the Gentoo devs would have masked it for you ;-)
>>
>>
>> -a
>>
>
> And they devs have done so. Python 3 is masked and even keyworded. It
> is a hint at least.
>
> Dale
>
> :-) :-)
Thanks all for your answers. Anyway, is the
Albert Hopkins wrote:
If it were
buggy the Gentoo devs would have masked it for you ;-)
-a
And they devs have done so. Python 3 is masked and even keyworded. It
is a hint at least.
Dale
:-) :-)
On Mon, 2009-12-07 at 10:28 +0100, Xavier Parizet wrote:
> Hi list,
>
> I eard [sic] some (long) time ago that portage is not compatible with python
> 2.7, so i
> masked it (python) in /etc/portage/package.mask. What i would like to know now
> is is portage now compatible with this version of pyt
On Monday 07 December 2009 11:28:07 Xavier Parizet wrote:
> Hi list,
>
> I eard some (long) time ago that portage is not compatible with python 2.7,
> so i masked it (python) in /etc/portage/package.mask. What i would like to
> know now is is portage now compatible with this version of python ?
Hi list,
I eard some (long) time ago that portage is not compatible with python 2.7, so i
masked it (python) in /etc/portage/package.mask. What i would like to know now
is is portage now compatible with this version of python ? Or if not, where can
i follow the status of this compatibility ? I loo
70 matches
Mail list logo
