On Jul 16, 2008, at 6:14 PM, Mariusz Mazur wrote:
>
>>> All other scripts should be run with
>>> what their authors expected, and that's bash (the Have It Just Work
>>> rule). The
>>
>> Bullshit. The scripts that expect bash have "#!/bin/bash" in
>> header, not
>> "#!/bin/sh".
>
> That's true on
Dnia czwartek, 17 lipca 2008, Bartosz Taudul napisał:
> Yes, condoning bad code practices is the way to go. Go install your
> ubuntu.
It's "bad" in theory. In practice, for the past mny years nobody gives a
shit about theory in case of /bin/sh. So that's top score for theory and a
FAIL on th
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 12:30:40AM +0200, Mariusz Mazur wrote:
> It's not a reliable system when any application can fail because it either
> expects something that all of the other distros, except us, have (sh -> bash)
Yes, condoning bad code practices is the way to go. Go install your
ubuntu.
Dnia czwartek, 17 lipca 2008, Tomasz Pala napisał:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 23:07:38 +0200, Mariusz Mazur wrote:
> > Over the years I've grown quite tired of a lot of cases where PLD tries
> > to be
>
> I'm tired too but it is a must have for reliable system.
It's not a reliable system when any a
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 23:07:38 +0200, Mariusz Mazur wrote:
> Over the years I've grown quite tired of a lot of cases where PLD tries to be
I'm tired too but it is a must have for reliable system.
> smarter then upstream and/or other distros and does something completely
> insignificant diffe
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 23:56:08 +0300, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
>> Use excludedocs Luke.
>
> /usr/share/vim/vim71/doc is not marked as %doc.
Isn't it?
~: du -sh /usr/share/vim/vim71/doc
280K/usr/share/vim/vim71/doc
%doc %{_datadir}/vim/v*/doc/*.txt
%lang(pl) %doc %{_datadir}/vim/v*/doc/*.plx
+1
Over the years I've grown quite tired of a lot of cases where PLD tries to be
smarter then upstream and/or other distros and does something completely
insignificant differently which results in having to patch up perfectly
working apps. On the one hand I've got a lot of stuff to make my life
On Wednesday 16 July 2008 23:07, Tomasz Pala wrote:
> > as i have few systems where /usr is really small and can't be grown . (do
> > not ask why), but i like vim, mostly due it's syntax hiliting feature.
>
> Use excludedocs Luke.
/usr/share/vim/vim71/doc is not marked as %doc.
it's not online hel
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 21:56:00 +0300, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
> can the packaging be automated like -debuginfo is right now?
>
> i'd vote for -pysource, -source names :)
+1
--
Tomasz Pala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
___
pld-devel-en mailing list
pld-devel-en@
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 22:00:33 +0300, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
> i'm also thinking perhaps create -doc subpackage.
It's only 5MB...
> as i have few systems where /usr is really small and can't be grown . (do not
> ask why), but i like vim, mostly due it's syntax hiliting feature.
Use excludedocs
On Wednesday 16 July 2008 19:57, Patryk Zawadzki wrote:
> On these systems 10MB is the same as 1k.
can vim-rt files be compressed somehow?
i know vim can read .gz files and write them, can it do same for help/ and
syntax/ files
i'm also thinking perhaps create -doc subpackage.
as i have few sy
On Wednesday 16 July 2008 16:07, Patryk Zawadzki wrote:
> Please no "save the 1k of disk space" arguments.
can the packaging be automated like -debuginfo is right now?
i'd vote for -pysource, -source names :)
--
glen
___
pld-devel-en mailing list
pld-
On Wednesday 16 of July 2008, 15:07, Patryk Zawadzki wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Following up on a Jabber discussion with arekm I'd like to start
> packaging .py files along with their bytecode counterparts.
Then put them in separate packages, named python-FOO-src or sth like that.
[...]
--
Tomasz Wittner
_
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 6:49 PM, Jakub Bogusz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (moving to -en)
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 03:31:41PM +0200, Patryk Zawadzki wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Mateusz Korniak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > On Wednesday 16 of July 2008, Patryk Zawadzki wrote:
>> >
(moving to -en)
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 03:31:41PM +0200, Patryk Zawadzki wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Mateusz Korniak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wednesday 16 of July 2008, Patryk Zawadzki wrote:
> >> I'd like to start
> >> packaging .py files along with their bytecode counterp
Hi,
Following up on a Jabber discussion with arekm I'd like to start
packaging .py files along with their bytecode counterparts. The
reasoning:
1) It's much easier to find bugs in your own code (or the code you're
packaging at the moment) when the libraries are available at hand
(currently I'm fo
Dnia środa, 16 lipca 2008, Adam Gołębiowski napisał:
> hmm, as to a) and b) -- was it really so time consuming?
No, because once set up, without a good reason (like a fscked up filesystem)
usually nobody touches those things (point being -- no maintenance effort
equals no new features).
> c) -
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 1:03 PM, Adam Gołębiowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 12:43:25PM +0200, Mariusz Mazur wrote:
>> Rationale:
>> Launchpad was chosen because (a) we don't have to maintain it, (b) we don't
>> have to host it (backups, whatever), (c) we don't have to dev
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 12:43:25PM +0200, Mariusz Mazur wrote:
> Rationale:
> Launchpad was chosen because (a) we don't have to maintain it, (b) we don't
> have to host it (backups, whatever), (c) we don't have to develop it and (d)
> it has some nice feature for upstream integration.
hmm, as to
>From now on bugs.pld-linux.org redirects to
https://bugs.launchpad.net/pld-linux. Old bugzilla is available under, well,
oldbugzilla.pld-linux.org with the only modification being that the 'add new
bug' form redirects to the appropriate launchpad form, meaning it's not
possible to add new bugs
20 matches
Mail list logo
