On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:23 AM, Valentin Villenave
wrote:
> Actually, this was a totally unnecessary precaution. I've never heard
> of any *nix system where uname -m would return X86_64 or I686 instead
> of their lower-case counterparts.
...
> Bottom line: let's get rid of it already.
Could we
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 9:26 AM, Graham Percival
wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:23 AM, Valentin Villenave
> wrote:
>> Actually, this was a totally unnecessary precaution. I've never heard
>> of any *nix system where uname -m would return X86_64 or I686 instead
>> of their lower-case counterpa
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 7:54 AM, Graham Percival
wrote:
> I didn't look at the patch(es). If that's all this is, then let's
> just get rid of it. Unix shells are case-sensitive; if somebody
> doesn't know that yet, they'll discover it pretty quickly.
Actually, this was a totally unnecessary pre
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 07:40:17AM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Graham Percival wrote on Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 07:28:09AM CET:
> > I would be astonished if the same functionality couldn't be
> > reached using POSIX shell commands, which should work on any unix
> > shell.
>
> This is about 'sho
* Graham Percival wrote on Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 07:28:09AM CET:
> I would be astonished if the same functionality couldn't be
> reached using POSIX shell commands, which should work on any unix
> shell.
This is about 'shopt -s nocasematch', right?
No, Posix shell doesn't have shopt, nor does it h
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 11:58:48PM +0100, Valentin Villenave wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 9:59 PM, Neil Puttock wrote:
> > I'm on 64-bit and still get the same error. The attached patch seems
> > to fix the problem, though it leads to another issue: Valentin's
> > original patch uses shopt, w
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 9:59 PM, Neil Puttock wrote:
> I'm on 64-bit and still get the same error. The attached patch seems
> to fix the problem, though it leads to another issue: Valentin's
> original patch uses shopt, which doesn't work with my default shell
> command; If I do the following,
T
On 27 November 2010 10:03, Graham Percival wrote:
> I'd rather not simply revert it, since it seems like a good
> feature. How are you declaring target_cpu ? Did you succeed in
> building GUB from scratch? if you can build it from scratch and I
> can't, then there must be something weird about
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 10:58:42AM +0100, Valentin Villenave wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 4:18 AM, Graham Percival
> wrote:
> > Tail of target/linux-x86/log/lilypond-installer.log
> > File "bin/../gub/commands.py", line 458, in execute
> > header_length = len (script % loc
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 4:18 AM, Graham Percival
wrote:
> Tail of target/linux-x86/log/lilypond-installer.log
> File "bin/../gub/commands.py", line 458, in execute
> header_length = len (script % locals ()) + 1
> KeyError: 'target_cpu'
That would be my check-architecture p
building package: linux-x86::lilypond-installer
*** Stage: download (lilypond-installer, linux-x86)
*** Stage: compile (lilypond-installer, linux-x86)
Command barfed: /usr/bin/python bin/gib --platform=linux-x86
--branch=guile=
--branch=lilypond=git.sv.gnu.org--lilypond.git-release-unstable
lilyp
11 matches
Mail list logo
