> Is it possible to pin the autoconf version (not just floor it)?
Not that I know of, no.
> Should we appoint an autoconf BDFL who can commit changes after configure.in
> is changed?
Most recently, it was between me and Benjamin most of the time, and that
seems to have worked fine. Now Benjami
On Oct 14, 2010, at 09:11 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> I don't see it as any more of a problem than upgrading against other
>> dependencies (like gcc?).
>
>Ok, so let's drop the requirement then.
Good for me. Is there a place where this requirement is documented?
-Barry
signature.asc
Descrip
> I don't see it as any more of a problem than upgrading against other
> dependencies (like gcc?).
Ok, so let's drop the requirement then.
Regards,
Martin
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-d
2010/10/14 "Martin v. Löwis" :
>>> I think it was intentional (at least deliberate), but I think it is a
>>> problem and should be reverted. There is, at any point, the official
>>> version that Python uses for autoconf, which at the moment is 2.65.
>>> The rationale is that with changing autoconf
>> I think it was intentional (at least deliberate), but I think it is a
>> problem and should be reverted. There is, at any point, the official
>> version that Python uses for autoconf, which at the moment is 2.65.
>> The rationale is that with changing autoconf versions, the actual
>> configure s
On Oct 14, 2010, at 08:27 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>I think it was intentional (at least deliberate), but I think it is a
>problem and should be reverted. There is, at any point, the official
>version that Python uses for autoconf, which at the moment is 2.65.
>The rationale is that with changin
2010/10/14 "Martin v. Löwis" :
> Am 14.10.2010 19:57, schrieb Daniel Stutzbach:
>> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 12:38 PM, barry.warsaw
>> mailto:python-check...@python.org>> wrote:
>>
>> -# Generated by GNU Autoconf 2.65 for python 3.2.
>> +# Generated by GNU Autoconf 2.67 for python 3.2.
>>
>>
Am 14.10.2010 19:57, schrieb Daniel Stutzbach:
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 12:38 PM, barry.warsaw
> mailto:python-check...@python.org>> wrote:
>
> -# Generated by GNU Autoconf 2.65 for python 3.2.
> +# Generated by GNU Autoconf 2.67 for python 3.2.
>
>
> Was the change in autoconf versions
Am 14.10.2010 11:25, schrieb Antoine Pitrou:
>
> Hello,
>
> In the http://bugs.python.org/issue10093 discussion, I proposed to add a
> specific warning category for unclosed files. The rationale is that
> these warnings will happen in destructors and therefore filtering by
> line number and filen
On Oct 14, 2010, at 07:38 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>There doesn't seem to be anything really mysterious, actually. The
>exception message says it all :)
Yep. Looks like Ubuntu 10.10 added UBUNTU_MENUPROXY to the default
environment and that's what's killing it. I'll bet those Ubuntu buildbots
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 12:38 PM, barry.warsaw
wrote:
> -# Generated by GNU Autoconf 2.65 for python 3.2.
> +# Generated by GNU Autoconf 2.67 for python 3.2.
>
Was the change in autoconf versions intentional and/or is it a problem?
--
Daniel Stutzbach, Ph.D.
President, Stutzbach Enterprises, LL
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 07:38:58PM +0200, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> An easy way to reproduce is to have an environment variable named
> "PROXY":
>
> $ PROXY=toto ./python -m test.regrtest -F test_urllib
> [ 1] test_urllib
> Warning -- os.environ was modified by test_urllib
> test test_urllib failed
On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 13:04:01 -0400
Barry Warsaw wrote:
> Posting this here first, though it's looking less like a Python bug and more
> like an environment problem, or issue with something in Ubuntu.
>
> I'm running the regular test suite for the py3k branch and seeing this failure
> on Ubuntu 10
On Oct 14, 2010, at 10:29 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>Could it be IPv6?
I don't think so. I have IPv6 disabled on at least one of the machines.
Also, I'm sure this failure did not occur before Ubuntu 10.10 final.
It also fails on Python 3.1.
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 10:29:12AM -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Could it be IPv6?
The error message says,
File "Lib/test/test_urllib.py", line 121, in setUp
for k in os.environ.keys():
File "/home/barry/projects/python/py3k/Lib/_abcoll.py", line 410, in __iter__
for key in self._m
Could it be IPv6?
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> Posting this here first, though it's looking less like a Python bug and more
> like an environment problem, or issue with something in Ubuntu.
>
> I'm running the regular test suite for the py3k branch and seeing this failu
Posting this here first, though it's looking less like a Python bug and more
like an environment problem, or issue with something in Ubuntu.
I'm running the regular test suite for the py3k branch and seeing this failure
on Ubuntu 10.10:
http://bugs.python.org/issue10094
test_urllib.py fails with
On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 08:07:46 +0200
Georg Brandl wrote:
>
> Very nice. http://www.python.org/dev/buildbot/stable/ is completely
> green at the moment -- which means that I can now indeed take failures
> seriously in the future. Previously, two of four "stables" for py3k
> were not even connected
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 02:25, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> In the http://bugs.python.org/issue10093 discussion, I proposed to add a
> specific warning category for unclosed files. The rationale is that
> these warnings will happen in destructors and therefore filtering by
> line number an
Doesn't autoconf need to be run to regenerate configure?
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 08:24, matthias.klose
wrote:
> Author: matthias.klose
> Date: Thu Oct 14 17:24:22 2010
> New Revision: 85481
>
> Log:
> - Issue #10094: Use versioned .so files on GNU/kfreeBSD and the GNU Hurd.
>
>
> Modified:
> py
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 01:00, Stephen Hansen
> wrote:
> On 10/13/10 10:28 PM, Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven wrote:
> > -On [20101014 00:55], Brian Curtin (brian.cur...@gmail.com) wrote:
> >> Correct. There are a few hacky ways to get Express to use the x64 SDK,
> or s
On Oct 14, 2010, at 09:34 AM, georg.brandl wrote:
>Author: georg.brandl
>Date: Thu Oct 14 09:34:56 2010
>New Revision: 85463
>
>Log:
>Better check for "any optimize option given".
>
>Modified:
> python/branches/py3k/Lib/test/test_import.py
>
>Modified: python/branches/py3k/Lib/test/test_import.p
On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 08:25:39 pm Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Hello,
>
> In the http://bugs.python.org/issue10093 discussion, I proposed to
> add a specific warning category for unclosed files. The rationale is
> that these warnings will happen in destructors and therefore
> filtering by line number and
On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 11:25:39 +0200
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> In the http://bugs.python.org/issue10093 discussion, I proposed to add a
> specific warning category for unclosed files. The rationale is that
> these warnings will happen in destructors and therefore filtering by
> line num
Hello,
In the http://bugs.python.org/issue10093 discussion, I proposed to add a
specific warning category for unclosed files. The rationale is that
these warnings will happen in destructors and therefore filtering by
line number and filename doesn't make sense. So a new category would be
useful i
On 10/06/10 14:12, Victor Stinner wrote:
Le mercredi 06 octobre 2010 09:34:05, Kálmán Gergely a écrit :
Nevertheless what are your thoughts on this? Should I file a bug report
for it?
It will be fixed faster if you open an issue and attach a patch ;-)
Just did: http://bugs.pyth
> #python-dev thought that VS express was all that was needed; then here,
> it seemed to me that Martin said that you needed the full version of VS
> or perhaps a complex setup with the SDK compiler; but you seem to be
> interpreting Martin that the SDK provides everything and nothing else is
> nee
27 matches
Mail list logo
