I just tried building
https://grass.osgeo.org/grass64/source/grass-6.4.6.tar.gz on Arch. All
is OK besides this one:
$ pwd
/home/dane/devel/aur/grass6/src/grass-6.4.6/gui/wxpython
$ make
make: *** No rule to make target '/home/dane/devel/aur/grass6/src/grass-6.4.6/dist.x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/etc/wxpython/xml/menudata.xml', needed by 'menustrings.py'. Stop.
Anybody else having this? There was no such problem with 6.4.5.
Maciek
--
Maciej Sieczka
http://www.sieczka.org
On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Maciej Sieczka <msieczka@sieczka.org> wrote:
I just tried building
https://grass.osgeo.org/grass64/source/grass-6.4.6.tar.gz on Arch. All
is OK besides this one:$ pwd
/home/dane/devel/aur/grass6/src/grass-6.4.6/gui/wxpython$ make
make: *** No rule to make target
'/home/dane/devel/aur/grass6/src/grass-6.4.6/dist.x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/etc/wxpython/xml/menudata.xml',
needed by 'menustrings.py'. Stop.
Perhaps due to r69281?
We discussed this at the recent code sprint, assuming that the file is
autogenerated in G6.
Maybe not the case?
Anybody else having this? There was no such problem with 6.4.5.
Maciek
Markus
On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Markus Neteler <neteler@osgeo.org> wrote:
On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Maciej Sieczka <msieczka@sieczka.org> wrote:
I just tried building
https://grass.osgeo.org/grass64/source/grass-6.4.6.tar.gz on Arch. All
is OK besides this one:$ pwd
/home/dane/devel/aur/grass6/src/grass-6.4.6/gui/wxpython$ make
make: *** No rule to make target
'/home/dane/devel/aur/grass6/src/grass-6.4.6/dist.x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/etc/wxpython/xml/menudata.xml',
needed by 'menustrings.py'. Stop.Perhaps due to r69281?
We discussed this at the recent code sprint, assuming that the file is
autogenerated in G6.
Maybe not the case?
I think it's autogenerated only in G7.
Anna
Anybody else having this? There was no such problem with 6.4.5.
Maciek
Markus
_______________________________________________
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 8:57 PM, Anna Petrášová <kratochanna@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Markus Neteler <neteler@osgeo.org> wrote:
On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Maciej Sieczka <msieczka@sieczka.org> wrote:
I just tried building
https://grass.osgeo.org/grass64/source/grass-6.4.6.tar.gz on Arch. All
is OK besides this one:$ pwd
/home/dane/devel/aur/grass6/src/grass-6.4.6/gui/wxpython$ make
make: *** No rule to make target
'/home/dane/devel/aur/grass6/src/grass-6.4.6/dist.x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/etc/wxpython/xml/menudata.xml',
needed by 'menustrings.py'. Stop.Perhaps due to r69281?
We discussed this at the recent code sprint, assuming that the file is
autogenerated in G6.
Maybe not the case?I think it's autogenerated only in G7.
omg... so we need to make a new G6 release :(((((((((
Anna
Anybody else having this? There was no such problem with 6.4.5.
Maciek
Markus
_______________________________________________
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 3:57 PM, Markus Neteler <neteler@osgeo.org> wrote:
On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 8:57 PM, Anna Petrášová <kratochanna@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Markus Neteler <neteler@osgeo.org> wrote:
On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Maciej Sieczka <msieczka@sieczka.org> wrote:
I just tried building
https://grass.osgeo.org/grass64/source/grass-6.4.6.tar.gz on Arch. All
is OK besides this one:$ pwd
/home/dane/devel/aur/grass6/src/grass-6.4.6/gui/wxpython$ make
make: *** No rule to make target
'/home/dane/devel/aur/grass6/src/grass-6.4.6/dist.x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/etc/wxpython/xml/menudata.xml',
needed by 'menustrings.py'. Stop.Perhaps due to r69281?
We discussed this at the recent code sprint, assuming that the file is
autogenerated in G6.
Maybe not the case?I think it's autogenerated only in G7.
omg... so we need to make a new G6 release :(((((((((
but nothing will change in svn (except for the howto_release.txt), so
can't you just make a new package?
Anna
Anybody else having this? There was no such problem with 6.4.5.
Maciek
Markus
_______________________________________________
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
W dniu 05.09.2016 o 01:32, Anna Petrášová pisze:
but nothing will change in svn (except for the howto_release.txt), so
can't you just make a new package?
If you asked me - release is meant to be immutable. But please do what
you think is right.
Maciek
--
Maciej Sieczka
http://www.sieczka.org
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 1:32 AM, Anna Petrášová <kratochanna@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 3:57 PM, Markus Neteler <neteler@osgeo.org> wrote:
On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 8:57 PM, Anna Petrášová <kratochanna@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Markus Neteler <neteler@osgeo.org> wrote:
On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Maciej Sieczka <msieczka@sieczka.org> wrote:
I just tried building
https://grass.osgeo.org/grass64/source/grass-6.4.6.tar.gz on Arch. All
is OK besides this one:$ pwd
/home/dane/devel/aur/grass6/src/grass-6.4.6/gui/wxpython$ make
make: *** No rule to make target
'/home/dane/devel/aur/grass6/src/grass-6.4.6/dist.x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/etc/wxpython/xml/menudata.xml',
needed by 'menustrings.py'. Stop.
...
but nothing will change in svn (except for the howto_release.txt), so
can't you just make a new package?
ok, done:
https://grass.osgeo.org/grass64/source/grass-6.4.6.tar.gz
@Maris: this contains also the missing file which I unfortunately
dropped before creating the tarball last time.
Markus
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Maciej Sieczka <msieczka@sieczka.org> wrote:
W dniu 05.09.2016 o 01:32, Anna Petrášová pisze:
but nothing will change in svn (except for the howto_release.txt), so
can't you just make a new package?If you asked me - release is meant to be immutable. But please do what
you think is right.
No idea what's right.
The tarball was wrong, the SVN tag is right.
What is the best practice for packaging errors? I remember that there
were issues once in a PROJ4 tarball as well. But I don't recall how
they dealt with it.
A new full release of 6 would be a major PITA, with hours of work for
me which I just spent recently on this topic.
Markus
W dniu 05.09.2016 o 10:45, Markus Neteler pisze:
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Maciej Sieczka <msieczka@sieczka.org> wrote:
W dniu 05.09.2016 o 01:32, Anna Petrášová pisze:
but nothing will change in svn (except for the howto_release.txt), so
can't you just make a new package?If you asked me - release is meant to be immutable. But please do what
you think is right.No idea what's right.
The tarball was wrong, the SVN tag is right.
So this is a bit less of an issue then.
What is the best practice for packaging errors? I remember that there
were issues once in a PROJ4 tarball as well. But I don't recall how
they dealt with it.A new full release of 6 would be a major PITA, with hours of work for
me which I just spent recently on this topic.
Yup, the PITA factor should never be understimated; but easily is from a
distance.
Thanks for the new tarball. It builds fine. Hopefully nobody picked up
the old one for their builds.
Maciek
--
Maciej Sieczka
http://www.sieczka.org
On 05/09/16 13:15, Maciej Sieczka wrote:
W dniu 05.09.2016 o 10:45, Markus Neteler pisze:
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Maciej Sieczka <msieczka@sieczka.org> wrote:
W dniu 05.09.2016 o 01:32, Anna Petrášová pisze:
but nothing will change in svn (except for the howto_release.txt), so
can't you just make a new package?If you asked me - release is meant to be immutable. But please do what
you think is right.No idea what's right.
The tarball was wrong, the SVN tag is right.So this is a bit less of an issue then.
What is the best practice for packaging errors? I remember that there
were issues once in a PROJ4 tarball as well. But I don't recall how
they dealt with it.A new full release of 6 would be a major PITA, with hours of work for
me which I just spent recently on this topic.Yup, the PITA factor should never be understimated; but easily is from a
distance.Thanks for the new tarball. It builds fine. Hopefully nobody picked up
the old one for their builds.
I think this is the major issue. Packagers who packaged immediately after the announcement might have used the tar ball.
We should at least announce on all lists the fact that there was an error in the tarball and that it is now corrected.
Moritz
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Moritz Lennert
<mlennert@club.worldonline.be> wrote:
On 05/09/16 13:15, Maciej Sieczka wrote:
W dniu 05.09.2016 o 10:45, Markus Neteler pisze:
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Maciej Sieczka <msieczka@sieczka.org>
wrote:W dniu 05.09.2016 o 01:32, Anna Petrášová pisze:
but nothing will change in svn (except for the howto_release.txt), so
can't you just make a new package?If you asked me - release is meant to be immutable. But please do what
you think is right.No idea what's right.
The tarball was wrong, the SVN tag is right.So this is a bit less of an issue then.
What is the best practice for packaging errors? I remember that there
were issues once in a PROJ4 tarball as well. But I don't recall how
they dealt with it.A new full release of 6 would be a major PITA, with hours of work for
me which I just spent recently on this topic.Yup, the PITA factor should never be understimated; but easily is from a
distance.Thanks for the new tarball. It builds fine. Hopefully nobody picked up
the old one for their builds.I think this is the major issue. Packagers who packaged immediately after
the announcement might have used the tar ball.
Maybe yes but
- I didn't announce it yet as usual
- the Web pages still point to the old 6.4.5 version
We should at least announce on all lists the fact that there was an error in
the tarball and that it is now corrected.
I did that earlier today in a README next to the tarball.
Will now edit the CMS announcement and update the download pages to
point to the new 6.4.6 (I meant to do that earlier, luckily it did not
happen yet 
)
Markus
On Sep 5, 2016 2:11 PM, “Markus Neteler” <neteler@osgeo.org> wrote:
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Moritz Lennert
<mlennert@club.worldonline.be> wrote:On 05/09/16 13:15, Maciej Sieczka wrote:
W dniu 05.09.2016 o 10:45, Markus Neteler pisze:
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Maciej Sieczka <msieczka@sieczka.org>
wrote:W dniu 05.09.2016 o 01:32, Anna Petrášová pisze:
but nothing will change in svn (except for the howto_release.txt), so
can’t you just make a new package?If you asked me - release is meant to be immutable. But please do what
you think is right.No idea what’s right.
The tarball was wrong, the SVN tag is right.So this is a bit less of an issue then.
What is the best practice for packaging errors? I remember that there
were issues once in a PROJ4 tarball as well. But I don’t recall how
they dealt with it.A new full release of 6 would be a major PITA, with hours of work for
me which I just spent recently on this topic.Yup, the PITA factor should never be understimated; but easily is from a
distance.Thanks for the new tarball. It builds fine. Hopefully nobody picked up
the old one for their builds.I think this is the major issue. Packagers who packaged immediately after
the announcement might have used the tar ball.Maybe yes but
- I didn’t announce it yet as usual
- the Web pages still point to the old 6.4.5 version
We should at least announce on all lists the fact that there was an error in
the tarball and that it is now corrected.I did that earlier today in a README next to the tarball.
Will now edit the CMS announcement and update the download pages to
point to the new 6.4.6 (I meant to do that earlier, luckily it did not
happen yet
Ops! I did change the link in the main page of the wiki some days ago… sorry… I thought I was helping with that 
Vero
On 05/09/16 22:20, Veronica Andreo wrote:
On Sep 5, 2016 2:11 PM, "Markus Neteler" <neteler@osgeo.org
<mailto:neteler@osgeo.org>> wrote:On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Moritz Lennert
<mlennert@club.worldonline.be <mailto:mlennert@club.worldonline.be>>wrote:
> On 05/09/16 13:15, Maciej Sieczka wrote:
>>
>> W dniu 05.09.2016 o 10:45, Markus Neteler pisze:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Maciej Sieczka<msieczka@sieczka.org <mailto:msieczka@sieczka.org>>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> W dniu 05.09.2016 o 01:32, Anna Petrášová pisze:
>>>>>
>>>>> but nothing will change in svn (except for thehowto_release.txt), so
>>>>> can't you just make a new package?
>>>>
>>>> If you asked me - release is meant to be immutable. But please dowhat
>>>> you think is right.
>>>
>>> No idea what's right.
>>> The tarball was wrong, the SVN tag is right.
>>
>> So this is a bit less of an issue then.
>>
>>> What is the best practice for packaging errors? I remember that there
>>> were issues once in a PROJ4 tarball as well. But I don't recall how
>>> they dealt with it.
>>>
>>> A new full release of 6 would be a major PITA, with hours of work for
>>> me which I just spent recently on this topic.
>>
>> Yup, the PITA factor should never be understimated; but easily isfrom a
>> distance.
>>
>> Thanks for the new tarball. It builds fine. Hopefully nobody picked up
>> the old one for their builds.
>
> I think this is the major issue. Packagers who packaged immediatelyafter
> the announcement might have used the tar ball.
Maybe yes but
- I didn't announce it yet as usual
It was announced on the web page on Aug 29, no ?
- the Web pages still point to the old 6.4.5 version
> We should at least announce on all lists the fact that there was an
error in
> the tarball and that it is now corrected.
I did that earlier today in a README next to the tarball.
Will now edit the CMS announcement and update the download pages to
point to the new 6.4.6 (I meant to do that earlier, luckily it did not
happen yetOps! I did change the link in the main page of the wiki some days ago...
sorry... I thought I was helping with that
Youn were, don't worry.
Both Windows and Mac links are still for 6.4.4 in fact (what happened to 6.4.5 ?).
And if the only announcement was on the web page and nowhere else, I think we can live with it.
Moritz