I'm not sure why it's failing in this particular case. I don't get any
errors building that that file (or any other HTML file),
pngdriver.html hasn't changed in over a month, and I checked for any
broken HTML files within the last few days. Do you have any local
modifications?
no, to be sure I have downloaded fresh code from SVN. Now I am getting
self.fmt(spec, content)
File "/home/martin/smetiste/grass_trunk/tools/g.html2man/g.html2man.py",
line 229, in fmt
(pre,sep,post) = format.partition("@")
AttributeError: 'str' object has no attribute 'partition'
I am using python 2.4. Are we going to require python >= 2.5?
I would strongly suggest it now. Tracking the release schedule of an actively developed language like Python is always a moving target, but as long as GRASS 7 is in development, I think we should try to do so within reason--because it will be much harder to do so once we have a stable GRASS 7.
Python 2.6 is the current stable release and Python 3 is in beta. So I think we are still being amply conservative by requiring >= 2.5.
> I am using python 2.4. Are we going to require python >= 2.5?
Michael:
I would strongly suggest it now. Tracking the release schedule of an
actively developed language like Python is always a moving target, but
as long as GRASS 7 is in development, I think we should try to do so
within reason--because it will be much harder to do so once we have a
stable GRASS 7.
I am not against requiring py2.5 for grass7, but if it costs us very
little to stay backwards compatible with 2.4, then why not make the effort?
Are the differences that great? Are we missing out on some huge advantage?
Just because we may run the latest OSs, many others may not have upgraded
in the last year, nor want to or are able to.
Python 2.6 is the current stable release and Python 3 is in beta. So I
think we are still being amply conservative by requiring >= 2.5.
for stability reasons, some of us like to run overly conservative systems.
(cough debian cough)
To make a dangerous over-generalization, the older feature set inherited
from py2.4 will be much better tested and bug free than the latest gee-wiz
fancy py2.6 features. And 2.4 is (just) <2 years old. It's not like arguing
to support Tcl/Tk 8.0.
I am using python 2.4. Are we going to require python >= 2.5?
Michael:
I would strongly suggest it now. Tracking the release schedule of an
actively developed language like Python is always a moving target, but
as long as GRASS 7 is in development, I think we should try to do so
within reason--because it will be much harder to do so once we have a
stable GRASS 7.
I am not against requiring py2.5 for grass7, but if it costs us very
little to stay backwards compatible with 2.4, then why not make the effort?
Are the differences that great? Are we missing out on some huge advantage?
Just because we may run the latest OSs, many others may not have upgraded
in the last year, nor want to or are able to.
Python 2.6 is the current stable release and Python 3 is in beta. So I
think we are still being amply conservative by requiring >= 2.5.
for stability reasons, some of us like to run overly conservative systems.
(cough debian cough)
To make a dangerous over-generalization, the older feature set inherited
from py2.4 will be much better tested and bug free than the latest gee-wiz
fancy py2.6 features. And 2.4 is (just) <2 years old. It's not like arguing
to support Tcl/Tk 8.0.
My main concern is for future flexibility. Once GRASS 7 is actually released, it will be a lot harder to switch from 2.4 to 2.5. This means that if there are features in 2.5 that are useful, we won't be able to access them. It seems easier to try to keep as up-to-date as possible during development of this new version of GRASS so that we won't be numerous versions behind in dependencies like Python after it is released. It's not a guarantee, but most likely the things that were stable in 2.4 will still be stable in 2.5.2. FWIW, 2.6 is a stable version, not a development version.