Here's some example code:
https://garage.maemo.org/plugins/scmsvn/viewcvs.php/branches/prototypes_0.7/ui/gauges/evasutil.c?root=carman&view=markup
I used it once for testing and worked. Maybe I'm dead wrong but AFAIK evas
doesn't support rotation yet, this is third party.
2008/8/6 Yong Ma <[EMAI
Hi List,
after the recent small API change in Ecore_Evas_Engines the python-bindings
of python-efl have been updated, but the python-efl API itself stayed the
same.
In my opinion this should be changed, too, because it's not a good style to
have different APIs in the bindings.
The attached patch c
Build log for Enlightenment DR 0.17 on 2008-08-06 07:11:28 -0700
Build logs are available at http://download.enlightenment.org/tests/logs
Packages that failed to build:
enna http://download.enlightenment.org/tests/logs/enna.log
epdf http://download.enlightenment.org/tests/logs/epdf.log
Packages
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 7:13 PM, raoul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le mercredi 6 août 2008, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri a écrit :
>> On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 5:36 PM, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler
>>
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 13:38:54 -0300 "Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri"
>> >
>>
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 7:13 PM, raoul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Le mercredi 6 août 2008, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri a écrit :
> >> On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 5:36 PM, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler
> >>
> >> <[EM
You're going to completely ignore all of the feedback you received on
this issue and just change the license without a consensus?
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 1:12 PM, Enlightenment CVS
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Enlightenment CVS committal
>
> Author : turran
> Project : e17
> Module : proto/eina
>
Have fun getting any of the libs in CVS to use Eina now. Just more
split effort...
Enlightenment CVS wrote:
> Enlightenment CVS committal
>
> Author : turran
> Project : e17
> Module : proto/eina
>
> Dir : e17/proto/eina
>
>
> Modified Files:
> COPYING
> Added Files:
> OLD-COP
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Nick Hughart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Have fun getting any of the libs in CVS to use Eina now. Just more
> split effort...
Since they're basically the only doing any code in CVS, it will be as
hard as before.
--
Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
http://profusion.mobi
Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Nick Hughart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Have fun getting any of the libs in CVS to use Eina now. Just more
>> split effort...
>>
>
> Since they're basically the only doing any code in CVS, it will be as
> hard as before
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 4:53 PM, Nick Hughart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Nick Hughart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Have fun getting any of the libs in CVS to use Eina now. Just more
>>> split effort...
>>>
>>
>> Since
Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 4:53 PM, Nick Hughart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Nick Hughart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
Have fun getting any of the libs in CVS to use Ei
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 5:04 PM, Nick Hughart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 4:53 PM, Nick Hughart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
>>>
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Nick Hughart <[EMAIL PROTE
Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 5:04 PM, Nick Hughart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 4:53 PM, Nick Hughart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
We don't want the ability to cross-pollinate code with those projects
and they are SEPARATE PROJECTS. The goal of eina was to unify around
one shared data lib, so why would we not be using eina?
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 3:09 PM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 20
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 4:09 PM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ah, fine... so you all use BSD's libC, do not use GNU LibC or any
> other LGPL library...
>
> --
> Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
> http://profusion.mobi embedded systems
> --
> MSN
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 9:01 PM, Nathan Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You're going to completely ignore all of the feedback you received on
> this issue and just change the license without a consensus?
>
Ok, let's begin on *how* i see this.
Eina's ideas hasn't been around for short time,
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 5:21 PM, Nathan Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We don't want the ability to cross-pollinate code with those projects
> and they are SEPARATE PROJECTS. The goal of eina was to unify around
> one shared data lib, so why would we not be using eina?
Because you don't lik
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 3:25 PM, Jorge Luis Zapata Muga
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 9:01 PM, Nathan Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You're going to completely ignore all of the feedback you received on
>> this issue and just change the license without a consensus?
>>
Now that will be the case, but when Eina was first brought back up,
the license was not mentioned and we were happy to see the work to
unify data libs happening.
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 3:33 PM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 5:21 PM, Nathan Ingersoll <
On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 15:20 -0500, Nick Hughart wrote:
> Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 5:04 PM, Nick Hughart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 4:53 PM, Nick Hughart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 4:33 PM, Nathan Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Consensus is how healthy communities operate, so your second point
> would be that E is an unhealthy community.
Nathan, E *is* an unhealthy community. To be honest, "E" is not even a
community. We are nothing more than a
Really? I have done my best to layout factual reasons and arguments
but have not seen any rebuttals that have attempted to do the same.
On 8/6/08, Viktor Kojouharov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 15:20 -0500, Nick Hughart wrote:
>> Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
>> > On Wed, A
On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 16:22 -0400, Jaime Thomas wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 4:09 PM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > ah, fine... so you all use BSD's libC, do not use GNU LibC or any
> > other LGPL library...
> >
> > --
> > Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
> > http://profu
On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 15:41 -0500, Nathan Ingersoll wrote:
> Really? I have done my best to layout factual reasons and arguments
> but have not seen any rebuttals that have attempted to do the same.
>
True, you have. And I didn't say otherwise. What I said was, more than
half just don't care.
And
On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 10:25:52PM +0200, Jorge Luis Zapata Muga wrote:
>
> Eina suddenly has gotten attention, not because of its technical
> features, but because i wanted it to be lpgl *and* raster has said
> that he wants to push eina's effort. That's the real thing, nobody
> cared about it o
On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 15:33 -0500, Nathan Ingersoll wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 3:25 PM, Jorge Luis Zapata Muga
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 9:01 PM, Nathan Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> You're going to completely ignore all of the feedback you received on
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 3:45 PM, Viktor Kojouharov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 15:41 -0500, Nathan Ingersoll wrote:
>> Really? I have done my best to layout factual reasons and arguments
>> but have not seen any rebuttals that have attempted to do the same.
>>
> True, you have
Look at the history of this project and any other complex projects. It
is very common that components get moved from one layer of abstraction
to another as it becomes apparent they fit better at another location.
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Viktor Kojouharov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed
Viktor Kojouharov wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 15:41 -0500, Nathan Ingersoll wrote:
>
>> Really? I have done my best to layout factual reasons and arguments
>> but have not seen any rebuttals that have attempted to do the same.
>>
>>
> True, you have. And I didn't say otherwise. What I sa
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Hisham Mardam Bey
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 4:33 PM, Nathan Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Consensus is how healthy communities operate, so your second point
>> would be that E is an unhealthy community.
>
> Nathan, E *is* an unheal
I'm a Summer of Code student this year (so, not a /real/ E developer),
and I was planning on keeping my head entirely out of this
conversation, but each email makes that more and more difficult. So
I've decided to express my _opinion_ on the matter of the E community
(I'm have no preference
On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 15:48 -0500, Nathan Ingersoll wrote:
> Look at the history of this project and any other complex projects. It
> is very common that components get moved from one layer of abstraction
> to another as it becomes apparent they fit better at another location.
Speaking specificall
On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 15:48 -0500, Nick Hughart wrote:
> Viktor Kojouharov wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 15:41 -0500, Nathan Ingersoll wrote:
> >
> >> Really? I have done my best to layout factual reasons and arguments
> >> but have not seen any rebuttals that have attempted to do the same.
>
Viktor Kojouharov wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 15:48 -0500, Nathan Ingersoll wrote:
>
>> Look at the history of this project and any other complex projects. It
>> is very common that components get moved from one layer of abstraction
>> to another as it becomes apparent they fit better at anot
On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 16:54 -0400, Timothy P. Horton wrote:
> I'm a Summer of Code student this year (so, not a /real/ E developer),
> and I was planning on keeping my head entirely out of this
> conversation, but each email makes that more and more difficult. So
> I've decided to express my
On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 16:00 -0500, Nick Hughart wrote:
> Viktor Kojouharov wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 15:48 -0500, Nathan Ingersoll wrote:
> >
> >> Look at the history of this project and any other complex projects. It
> >> is very common that components get moved from one layer of abstrac
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Viktor Kojouharov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 15:48 -0500, Nathan Ingersoll wrote:
>> Look at the history of this project and any other complex projects. It
>> is very common that components get moved from one layer of abstraction
>> to another
Viktor Kojouharov wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 16:00 -0500, Nick Hughart wrote:
>
>> Viktor Kojouharov wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 15:48 -0500, Nathan Ingersoll wrote:
>>>
>>>
Look at the history of this project and any other complex projects. It
is very common
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 3:54 PM, Timothy P. Horton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm a Summer of Code student this year (so, not a /real/ E developer),
> and I was planning on keeping my head entirely out of this
> conversation, but each email makes that more and more difficult. So
> I've decided to
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 10:46 PM, Mike Rutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 10:25:52PM +0200, Jorge Luis Zapata Muga wrote:
>>
>> Eina suddenly has gotten attention, not because of its technical
>> features, but because i wanted it to be lpgl *and* raster has said
>> that he
Jorge Luis Zapata Muga wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 10:46 PM, Mike Rutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 10:25:52PM +0200, Jorge Luis Zapata Muga wrote:
>>
>>> Eina suddenly has gotten attention, not because of its technical
>>> features, but because i wanted it
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 10:33 PM, Nathan Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 3:25 PM, Jorge Luis Zapata Muga
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 9:01 PM, Nathan Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> You're going to completely ignore all of the feedback
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 11:37 PM, Nick Hughart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jorge Luis Zapata Muga wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 10:46 PM, Mike Rutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 10:25:52PM +0200, Jorge Luis Zapata Muga wrote:
>>>
Eina suddenly has g
Jorge Luis Zapata Muga wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 10:33 PM, Nathan Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 3:25 PM, Jorge Luis Zapata Muga
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 9:01 PM, Nathan Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
> Cedric was interested on the project by himself and because it was
> technically good, i think having a common library for data types is
> something we all agree. I think he will reply on this. And yes, the
> license do has something to do with this, as *i* want it to be lgpl.
>
>
Ok, let's stop
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 12:06 AM, Nick Hughart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jorge Luis Zapata Muga wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 10:33 PM, Nathan Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 3:25 PM, Jorge Luis Zapata Muga
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>
Luchezar Petkov wrote:
>> Cedric was interested on the project by himself and because it was
>> technically good, i think having a common library for data types is
>> something we all agree. I think he will reply on this. And yes, the
>> license do has something to do with this, as *i* want it to
On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 12:21:28PM -0400, Thiago Marcos P. Santos wrote:
>
> Git can also improve the patches quality, because you can work offline (i.e.
> reorder, redo, refactory, etc your commit) and when you think that
> everything is perfect, send the patchs. With CVS you will need something
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 2:06 AM, Jose Gonzalez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Luchezar Petkov wrote:
>
>> Cedric was interested on the project by himself and because it was
>>> technically good, i think having a common library for data types is
>>> something we all agree. I think he will reply on thi
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 7:29 PM, Luchezar Petkov
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 2:06 AM, Jose Gonzalez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Luchezar Petkov wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Our" core base libs? Obviously there's a difference in opinion
>> between various contributors to these cor
Jose Gonzalez wrote:
> Luchezar Petkov wrote:
>
>>> Cedric was interested on the project by himself and because it was
>>> technically good, i think having a common library for data types is
>>> something we all agree. I think he will reply on this. And yes, the
>>> license do has something to
Zachary Goldberg wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 7:29 PM, Luchezar Petkov
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 2:06 AM, Jose Gonzalez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Luchezar Petkov wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Our" core base libs? Obviously there's a difference in opini
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 4:32 PM, Jorge Luis Zapata Muga
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> True, it looks like but it isnt. Let me explain. The community
> fragmentation is *not only* the license, it is mainly because of point
> 1. Point 2 is refered to people that won't code on eina and for people
> th
As another long-term enlightenment user (since at least 2000) who has
never entered these discussions before I'd like to add by tuppence
worth too. Saying that you wish to increase the community while at the
same time creating a serious rift which may cause people, devs or
users, to be put off or l
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 9:16 PM, Mark Dickie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As another long-term enlightenment user (since at least 2000) who has
> never entered these discussions before I'd like to add by tuppence
> worth too. Saying that you wish to increase the community while at the
> same time cr
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 4:52 PM, Jorge Luis Zapata Muga
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> You can't tell me that im wrong as i did eina and took the decisions
> about it. I have to explain this as this totally wrong. Eina's attempt
> was known, i already commented about it on irc and on ml, *with*
> in
>
>
> This policy is not fitting current developer's need anymore, at least
> a big part of active developers. These developers are willing to
> invest even more efforts, making EFL even better, but they want some
> changes.
>
> People already said about forks and do these kind of things out of CVS
So your argument is that you don't need to justify your choices
because you're more active right now?
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 8:09 PM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 9:16 PM, Mark Dickie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> As another long-term enlightenment u
Also, this is exactly my point about being disrespectful and hurting
the community. You are devaluating the opinions of volunteers in the
community because you get to spend your paid time on it. I still
contribute multiple hours each week to the project either through
reviewing patches, helping eva
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 10:26 PM, Nathan Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So your argument is that you don't need to justify your choices
> because you're more active right now?
Basically, and because your license says so.
As for keeping core consistent, we CAN, if this is the only blocker,
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 10:42 PM, Nathan Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also, this is exactly my point about being disrespectful and hurting
> the community. You are devaluating the opinions of volunteers in the
> community because you get to spend your paid time on it. I still
> contribute
I'd like to see a new forum. The current one is pretty lame :(
Perhaps something a little more standard or as folks like to say, "Better".
:)
Toma
2008/8/5 Ian Caldwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> whoops messed up on the link it's
> http://fc06.deviantart.com/fs30/i/2008/126/3/0/Inkscape_Site_devel___
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 8:45 PM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 10:26 PM, Nathan Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> So your argument is that you don't need to justify your choices
>> because you're more active right now?
>
> Basically, and because y
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 8:55 PM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 10:42 PM, Nathan Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Also, this is exactly my point about being disrespectful and hurting
>> the community. You are devaluating the opinions of volunteers
Nathan Ingersoll wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 8:45 PM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 10:26 PM, Nathan Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> So your argument is that you don't need to justify your choices
>>> because you're more active right no
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 9:57 PM, Christopher Michael
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm not much of a lawyer, nor do I claim to know much about LGPL, but if in
> fact this is the case and we can't change back at a later date without much
> effort, then by all means put me down for the "Not Changing"
I dont think the forums are getting much use. Few, if any, of the devs
look at it, and while a bunch of users seem to post questions, there
are very few answers.
I'd like to see the forums turned off (made read-only) and the mailing
lists really emphasized as the main location for discussions/suppo
Nathan Ingersoll wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 9:57 PM, Christopher Michael
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'm not much of a lawyer, nor do I claim to know much about LGPL, but if in
>> fact this is the case and we can't change back at a later date without much
>> effort, then by all means put m
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 11:09 PM, Nathan Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 9:57 PM, Christopher Michael
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> I'm not much of a lawyer, nor do I claim to know much about LGPL, but if in
>> fact this is the case and we can't change back at a la
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 10:19 PM, Zachary Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Sort of ancillary to this discussion but as point of fact:
>
> GPL was designed to keep software free, away from people who would
> close it and then sell it. The "Changing the license is hard" with
> the GPL is very
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beerware
To those unfamiliar with it
/*
*
* "THE BEER-WARE LICENSE" (Revision 42):
* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote this file. As long as you retain this notice you
* can do whatever you want
71 matches
Mail list logo
