[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: lilypond and python

On Thu, Jul 27, 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> >> I believe the patch you sent was not against the current upstream
> >  I am not the lilypond maintainer, I don't want to have to download an
> >  upstream tarball or prepare a CVS snapshot or whatever for a package
> >  I'm not interested in.  The package has received some attention because
> >  you complained publicly about python not being python2.4, and I was
> >  curious to see how complex it would have been to sed the scripts to use
> >  python2.4 instead of waiting for python to be python2.4.
> "I am not the maintainer" is the refrain of people who don't want to
> help.  You don't have to help; nobody is ordering you to.  I explained
> what would help, and got a lot of people with uninformed guesses about
> what would help, but no actual assistance.

 No, that's not a correct representation of what you did.  What you did
 is bring whatever your excuse for being lazy was back then on
 debian-devel@ and claim is stops you from fixing bug.

 Your last excuse was the default Python version.  You were told by a
 bunch of people that it has no impact.  You were told that the default
 Python version had been announced as being available in experimental.

 This is the stupidiest thing you ever did, because everyone had to look
 at your handling of your packages.  Everybody saw your gcc-4.1 RC with
 a patch which you're blocking until the new upstream release.
 Everybody saw the awful packaging mistakes you did.  You can close or
 downgrade the bugs I reported, it's too late.

> Nobody has to help, but they seemed to be more interested in proving
> that I'm hopeless than actually helping.  In your case, you claimed to
> be helping, by providing a "solution" to a problem that simply didn't
> exist (how to use python2.4 with the old lilypond version).  And, I
> was already clear that this didn't help anything.
> That's entirely fair enough; the point was that I said that
> "such-and-such" would help me, and you provided something entirely
> different which doesn't help anyone.  Thanks to Adeodato Simó who
> actually helped by providing something that works well.

 I didn't see any additional complexity in doing the same in a new
 upstream release, but indeed, I did not spend the extra effort to
 prepare a full new upstream release instead of you (the maintainer).
 You did not provide any detail on what the problem actually is with
 that upstream release.

 I heard from multiple sources that the problem with the new upstream
 release was not at all caused by the default python version -- as you
 claimed -- but either by a higher guile requirement.

 I consider that you failed in two things:
 - spotting the requirement of a new guile in the new upstream
 - explaining the problems you had with python not being python2.4

 I do agree that I did not provide a patch against the new upstream
 release, but on the other hand you can't request people to provide
 patches on sources which will not build because of other problems.  And
 lilypond won't build without other patches first, whatever the version.

 Oh, perhaps you wanted me to prepare a new guile upstream release

> And, as it happens, works far better than the "cheap and easy" advice
> to just use sed to change "python" to "python2.4" all over the place.
> If every one of the proud insisters about how easy it is would reflect
> on the fact that they utterly failed to suggest the correct solution,
> this might do some good.

 Yeah, please give all your bashers a lesson of behavior, after all
 aren't you Thomas Bushnell on his white horse?

 Of course, what you did to the Python maintainer is certainly not

Loïc Minier <lool@dooz.org>

Reply to: