Re: [gentoo-dev] fltk version 1.1 is the one to go for
On 03/25/2010 11:01 PM, li...@gabriel-striewe.de wrote: > Hello, > > I wanted to report that cinepaint (which as of today is not in > portage) compiles fine on my gentoo box which has been emerge-synced > only yesterday. It uses however not the fltk-2.0 which is emerged by > default but the version fltk-1.1.10. > > On the fltk website they say however that actually 1.1 is the stable > version, whereas fltk-2.0 is an experimental version which is not as > much maintained as 1.1. By the way, 1.3 is the development version. > > In case anybody would like to take care of this, I won't be able to do > so during the next few weeks. > > Regards, > > Gabriel > > P.S.: I actually only tested the latest cvs version. I will test the > latest stable tarball and then see whether cinepaint is fully > functional, and will report back any problems I might encounter. > > http://bugs.gentoo.org/278375 is for cinepaint, not the mailinglist, but thanks anyway. - samuli
[gentoo-dev] fltk version 1.1 is the one to go for
Hello, I wanted to report that cinepaint (which as of today is not in portage) compiles fine on my gentoo box which has been emerge-synced only yesterday. It uses however not the fltk-2.0 which is emerged by default but the version fltk-1.1.10. On the fltk website they say however that actually 1.1 is the stable version, whereas fltk-2.0 is an experimental version which is not as much maintained as 1.1. By the way, 1.3 is the development version. In case anybody would like to take care of this, I won't be able to do so during the next few weeks. Regards, Gabriel P.S.: I actually only tested the latest cvs version. I will test the latest stable tarball and then see whether cinepaint is fully functional, and will report back any problems I might encounter.
[gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs
Hi, I have a bunch of packages that I no longer use and have little to no motivation to maintain. I will be replacing myself with maintainer-needed in their metadata.xml in a few days. If you want to take them, feel free to edit metadata.xml directly -- no need to ask for permission :) > app-accessibility/powiedz > app-i18n/man-pages-pl > app-text/clara > net-analyzer/chaosreader > net-analyzer/gspoof > net-im/ekg > net-im/gnugadu > net-im/tleenx2 > net-libs/libtlen These are all low maintenance packages with no open bugs, the exception being ekg, for which there is an open request for a live ebuild (bug 300017). Thanks, -- Michal Januszewski http://people.gentoo.org/spock
Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item
2010-03-25 19:34:24 Roy Bamford napisał(a): > On 2010.03.24 21:12, William Hubbs wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 09:36:52PM +0100, Ben de Groot wrote: > > > On 24 March 2010 21:25, William Hubbs wrote: > > > > If we make it clear in the news item that python-3 cannot be used > > as the > > > > default python, so if users do not want it they should mask it, > > we > > have > > > > done our job imho. In other words, this is just a matter of > > informing > > > > users. > > > > > > We agree that this is the minimum that should be done. But our > > > Python lead stubbornly refuses to honor this reasonable request. > > > > On the other hand, I can see his point as well. The news item makes > > it > > very clear that python-3 cannot be the default python and that > > python-2 > > needs to be installed. > > > > It could be argued that he is just assuming that users are > > intelligent > > enough to figure out that they need to mask python-3 if they > > do not want it on their systems. > > > > Basically this is a case of "how much hand-holding do we want to do"? > > > > William > > > > > > The case where Python-3 cannot be used as the default Python is > transitory (it may be a long time). Gentoo Python Project will soon start supporting setting Python 3 as main active version of Python. Currently about 57% of our packages from dev-python category are prepared. -- Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item
On 2010.03.24 21:12, William Hubbs wrote: > On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 09:36:52PM +0100, Ben de Groot wrote: > > On 24 March 2010 21:25, William Hubbs wrote: > > > If we make it clear in the news item that python-3 cannot be used > as the > > > default python, so if users do not want it they should mask it, > we > have > > > done our job imho. In other words, this is just a matter of > informing > > > users. > > > > We agree that this is the minimum that should be done. But our > > Python lead stubbornly refuses to honor this reasonable request. > > On the other hand, I can see his point as well. The news item makes > it > very clear that python-3 cannot be the default python and that > python-2 > needs to be installed. > > It could be argued that he is just assuming that users are > intelligent > enough to figure out that they need to mask python-3 if they > do not want it on their systems. > > Basically this is a case of "how much hand-holding do we want to do"? > > William > > The case where Python-3 cannot be used as the default Python is transitory (it may be a long time). Should we advise users of stable to mask it, we will get a lot of pleas for help when Python-3 is required because many users will have forgotten all about package.mask In my view, its better to avoid these future unmasking issues as stable users tend to be very wary of unmasking things and let them have Python-3 unless they are already comfortable with the contents of /etc/ portage ... in which case they are not using stable anyway. -- Regards, Roy Bamford (Neddyseagoon) a member of gentoo-ops forum-mods trustees pgpivXFtPOgsk.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: MinGW for windows - creating dlls
On Thursday 25 March 2010 13:53:29 Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > On 03/25/2010 07:43 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Thursday 25 March 2010 12:57:21 Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > >> On 03/17/2010 03:38 PM, Mansour Al Akeel wrote: > >>> I am not sure if this is the best list to ask, but I will ask here > >>> since it's related to development and cross compilation. > >>> > >>> I have setup a 32 bit chroot environment to be able to cross develop > >>> for windows. I followed this guide: > >>> > >>> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/base/embedded/cross-development.xml > >> > >> You should be better off using this instead: > >> > >> http://www.nongnu.org/mingw-cross-env > > > > mingw + dlls + etc... works just fine under crossdev/Gentoo > > It's just a bit difficult to work with. It needs a lot of effort to set > everything up. it'll stay that way unless someone improves things. it works for my needs, so i have no vested interest here. > 64-bit Windows apps also easy to build. and it's trivial with crossdev too. i build 64bit windows JTAG/USB apps. > Btw, does anyone intent to put an ebuild of mingw-cross-env in Portage? :P i only spend time on crossdev. anything else is a waste. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
[gentoo-dev] Re: MinGW for windows - creating dlls
On 03/25/2010 07:43 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Thursday 25 March 2010 12:57:21 Nikos Chantziaras wrote: On 03/17/2010 03:38 PM, Mansour Al Akeel wrote: I am not sure if this is the best list to ask, but I will ask here since it's related to development and cross compilation. I have setup a 32 bit chroot environment to be able to cross develop for windows. I followed this guide: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/base/embedded/cross-development.xml You should be better off using this instead: http://www.nongnu.org/mingw-cross-env mingw + dlls + etc... works just fine under crossdev/Gentoo -mike It's just a bit difficult to work with. It needs a lot of effort to set everything up. I recommend mingw-cross-env because it simply works out of the box and you can even compile stuff like Qt and build Windows Qt applications without any effort. 64-bit Windows apps also easy to build. So all things considered, it's the better solution. crossdev of course has other virtues and is universal. It's really just the MS Windows special case that makes mingw-cross-env worth looking at, since it's specialized for just this, while crossdev is a generic solution. Btw, does anyone intent to put an ebuild of mingw-cross-env in Portage? :P
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: MinGW for windows - creating dlls
On Thursday 25 March 2010 12:57:21 Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > On 03/17/2010 03:38 PM, Mansour Al Akeel wrote: > > I am not sure if this is the best list to ask, but I will ask here since > > it's related to development and cross compilation. > > > > I have setup a 32 bit chroot environment to be able to cross develop for > > windows. I followed this guide: > > > > http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/base/embedded/cross-development.xml > > You should be better off using this instead: > > http://www.nongnu.org/mingw-cross-env mingw + dlls + etc... works just fine under crossdev/Gentoo -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
[gentoo-dev] Re: MinGW for windows - creating dlls
On 03/17/2010 03:38 PM, Mansour Al Akeel wrote: Hello all, I am not sure if this is the best list to ask, but I will ask here since it's related to development and cross compilation. I have setup a 32 bit chroot environment to be able to cross develop for windows. I followed this guide: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/base/embedded/cross-development.xml You should be better off using this instead: http://www.nongnu.org/mingw-cross-env
Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item
On 03/24/2010 11:47 PM, Joshua Saddler wrote: Even then, it'll likely get installed first, as users will probably learn about p.masking it only *after* they install it. I don't have strong feelings on whether having v3 installed by default is a big problem, but the last bit here probably should be addressed. The current news item only shows up for people with python 3.1 already installed. Would it make sense to have it show up for anybody with any version of python installed? Otherwise it is news after-the-fact. Rich
