Re: [blfs-dev] GNOME 3.4 Finished
Le 01/05/2012 16:31, Armin K. a écrit : Today I've finished updating and checking all of Gnome 3.4 components and everything was ok. It's up to you people to test it and find bugs in the book/instructions or the packages itself. I'll be updating it to newer version when it's done. After that if desired someone can test it installing into /opt or whatever with sysconfdir /etc/gnome or whatever. I'll modify the book if necesary, just make notes about your installation. Regards Hi, I am in the process of testing, as I did for KDE. Looks like you have done quite a good job, since I have not much to say up to now, but I am far from finished yet. I have found that GConf is a required dep of libcanberra: Configure prints a message but exits without error. Then make install fails when installing gtk bindings. Everything goes smooth if GConf is built before. Right now, I am stuck at folks (the 70th package on a list of 130 to build gdm with required and recommended deps) , which seems to require a lot of vala libraries which are missing. But no time to test today. regards, Pierre -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] [blfs-book] r10058 - in trunk/BOOK: . introduction/welcome postlfs/editors x/lib
On 05/02/2012 12:58 PM, a...@linuxfromscratch.org wrote: Author: andy Date: 2012-05-02 04:58:33 -0600 (Wed, 02 May 2012) New Revision: 10058 Modified: trunk/BOOK/x/lib/gtk+3.xml Next time discuss before reverting my work, ok? http://www.gtk.org/ it's GTK+, not Gtk ... And since we have two versions, I put GTK+-3 (It could be GTK+ 3 also= ... -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] sane and xsane
--- Em ter, 1/5/12, Bruce Dubbs escreveu: De: Bruce Dubbs Assunto: Re: [blfs-dev] sane and xsane Para: BLFS Development List Data: Terça-feira, 1 de Maio de 2012, 14:12 Fernando de Oliveira wrote: Hi, Bruce, Thank you very much for the upgrade of these packages. I was reading the pages, which are very good, and noticed some tipos: [...] OK, I made those changes. -- Bruce Thanks, Bruce. The other day, when I asked you about how was going, referring your builds of (*)Sane, I know how busy you are, so, it was not a demand, but just to find, whenever you wanted, if I could be of any help. I have already, in several occasions, run into difficulties with people I know, for not phrasing correctly what I mean. []s, Fernando -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] [blfs-book] r10058 - in trunk/BOOK: . introduction/welcome postlfs/editors x/lib
On Wed, 02 May 2012 12:47:33 +0100 Armin K. kre...@email.com wrote: On 05/02/2012 12:58 PM, a...@linuxfromscratch.org wrote: Author: andy Date: 2012-05-02 04:58:33 -0600 (Wed, 02 May 2012) New Revision: 10058 Modified: trunk/BOOK/x/lib/gtk+3.xml Next time discuss before reverting my work, ok? http://www.gtk.org/ it's GTK+, not Gtk ... And since we have two versions, I put GTK+-3 (It could be GTK+ 3 also= ... Sorry, I was just trying to make it more consistent across the book. Links to the Gtk 2 page show as gtk+-2.24.10 and links to Gtk 3 show as GTK+-3.4.1. It seems inconsistent to have one as ALL CAPITALS and the other as all lower case. We could make them all capitals if you want, but when Bruce brought up the subject of links lately http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/blfs-dev/2012-April/022891.html I got the impression that we agreed that the title should match the package file name And for what it's worth, I wrote the Gtk 3 page. It's not my work as it's part of the book. It belongs to all of us. Andy -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] sane and xsane
So so sorry again. *My* mistake in XSane: ln -v -s browser usr/bin/netscape s/usr/\/usr/ Of course, no hurry intended. Trying to get back to old times when was extremely accurate and rigorous, hope I still can. []s, Fernando -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] [blfs-book] r10058 - in trunk/BOOK: . introduction/welcome postlfs/editors x/lib
On 05/02/2012 02:08 PM, Andrew Benton wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2012 12:47:33 +0100 Armin K.kre...@email.com wrote: On 05/02/2012 12:58 PM, a...@linuxfromscratch.org wrote: Author: andy Date: 2012-05-02 04:58:33 -0600 (Wed, 02 May 2012) New Revision: 10058 Modified: trunk/BOOK/x/lib/gtk+3.xml Next time discuss before reverting my work, ok? http://www.gtk.org/ it's GTK+, not Gtk ... And since we have two versions, I put GTK+-3 (It could be GTK+ 3 also= ... Sorry, I was just trying to make it more consistent across the book. Links to the Gtk 2 page show as gtk+-2.24.10 and links to Gtk 3 show as GTK+-3.4.1. It seems inconsistent to have one as ALL CAPITALS and the other as all lower case. We could make them all capitals if you want, but when Bruce brought up the subject of links lately http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/blfs-dev/2012-April/022891.html I got the impression that we agreed that the title should match the package file name http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/gnome/sources/gtk+/3.4/gtk+-3.4.1.tar.xz It's still gtk+3 not gtk 3 (And I prefer to capitalize everything since upstream called it that way). If you set title to the GTK+, then set everything else. I really don't care for GTK+2 ... You could switch them to the same format if it was necesary, but don't revert other people's work (like you did on the cairo page, even tough comment explained everything). And for what it's worth, I wrote the Gtk 3 page. It's not my work as it's part of the book. It belongs to all of us. Andy my work - http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/blfs-book/2012-April/031971.html - check gtk3.xml modifications. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] [blfs-book] r10058 - in trunk/BOOK: . introduction/welcome postlfs/editors x/lib
On Wed, 02 May 2012 13:35:51 +0100 Armin K. kre...@email.com wrote: http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/gnome/sources/gtk+/3.4/gtk+-3.4.1.tar.xz It's still gtk+3 not gtk 3 I'm not bothered one way or the other as long as we're consistent. I think the first letter should be capitalised in the same way that you'd capitalise the name of something, 'cos it is the name of something. What do other people think? Should it be Gtk 3, Gtk+-3 or GTK+-3? (And I prefer to capitalize everything since upstream called it that way). Upstream don't get to decide on the style of BLFS. If you set title to the GTK+, then set everything else. I really don't care for GTK+2 ... You could switch them to the same format if it was necesary, but don't revert other people's work (like you did on the cairo page, even tough comment explained everything). If a page can be improved it should be improved. We can't be afraid of changing a file because it was last edited by someone else. These aren't sacred texts, they're technical documents that should reflect reality. Andy -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] [blfs-book] r10058 - in trunk/BOOK: . introduction/welcome postlfs/editors x/lib
On 05/02/2012 04:06 PM, Andrew Benton wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2012 14:31:44 +0100 Armin K.kre...@email.com wrote: It's still rude. It's like you managed to fully build a house and someone else comes and replaces windows with ones he/she likes. You've lost me. When was I rude? Andy That you've changed the stuff I changed recently for no good reason. That's what's this mail about. It's still Gtk 3, but it should be package name, so Gtk+ 3 should be there at least. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] sane and xsane
Fernando de Oliveira wrote: I have already, in several occasions, run into difficulties with people I know, for not phrasing correctly what I mean. Sometimes it's difficult to communicate with just email. You don't have facial reaction to develop non-verbal clues like you would in a face-to-face conversation. Sometimes smilies help :-), ;), etc. The readers should always keep in mind that text only communication can be hazardous and it's easy to read meaning into messages that were not intended. Mix that with different personalities, cultures, and native languages, and the risk goes up. I've found the easiest way to address this is to try to stay away from things that can raise an emotional reaction and try to stay on the technical side of things. It's not always possible, but I've found the approach tends to minimize problems. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] sane and xsane
Fernando de Oliveira wrote: So so sorry again. *My* mistake in XSane: ln -v -s browser usr/bin/netscape s/usr/\/usr/ The typo has been fixed. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] GNOME 3.4 Finished
On 05/02/2012 10:54 AM, Pierre Labastie wrote: Le 01/05/2012 16:31, Armin K. a écrit : Today I've finished updating and checking all of Gnome 3.4 components and everything was ok. It's up to you people to test it and find bugs in the book/instructions or the packages itself. I'll be updating it to newer version when it's done. After that if desired someone can test it installing into /opt or whatever with sysconfdir /etc/gnome or whatever. I'll modify the book if necesary, just make notes about your installation. Regards Hi, I am in the process of testing, as I did for KDE. Looks like you have done quite a good job, since I have not much to say up to now, but I am far from finished yet. I have found that GConf is a required dep of libcanberra: Configure prints a message but exits without error. Then make install fails when installing gtk bindings. Everything goes smooth if GConf is built before. Right now, I am stuck at folks (the 70th package on a list of 130 to build gdm with required and recommended deps) , which seems to require a lot of vala libraries which are missing. But no time to test today. regards, Pierre Thanks for the report. I've added GConf into Required if building GNOME section for libcanberra. I've also recommended vala to GNOME packages where it was optional and also added correct switches to explicitly enable vala for some packages that have disabled it by default. I remember I had some issues with that one too, especially telepathy and folks. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] Xulrunner
On 05/01/2012 12:31 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: I think we are going to remove openjdk, but keep iced-tea. I've discussed with DJ, but he has the most experience with it. I think there is some confusion on this topic in general, so I'll try to explain. OpenJDK is the GPL'd version of Oracle's JDK with all of the closed parts removed. IcedTea is a project that replaces the closed parts with GPL software. The IcedTea download is just a build harness that provides a complete JDK with all of the functionality of the Oracle one using only GPL software, which is followed by IcedTea-Web to provide a GPL implementation of the browser plug-in and Java Web Start. I should mention that the OpenJDK license is GPLv3 with Classpath Exception. The Classpath Exception is akin to LGPL for jar files, you can release closed software using the classes in OpenJDK, but any changes must still be given back to the community. As far as future plans, unless somebody sees some value in the closed version, I do want Oracle's JDK removed from the book, and I plan to rename the IcedTea page OpenJDK as IcedTea is just the build tool. I hope that clears up any confusion. -- DJ Lucas -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content, and is believed to be clean. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] Fwd: [ANNOUNCE] xf86-video-intel 2.19.0
On 05/01/2012 07:22 AM, Armin K. wrote: Original Message Subject: [ANNOUNCE] xf86-video-intel 2.19.0 Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 11:47:06 +0100 From: Chris Wilsonch...@chris-wilson.co.uk Reply-To: x...@lists.freedesktop.org To: xorg-annou...@lists.freedesktop.org CC: intel-...@lists.freedesktop.org, x...@lists.freedesktop.org I sent this out over the weekend and never saw it arrive, so presuming the announcement was lost in transit... Release 2.19.0 (2012-04-29) === * Remove broken acceleration for rendering glyphs directly upon the destination pixmap, exposed by cairo-1.12.0 (and coincidentally fix another Pixmap leak upon fallback handling). -- I just got this mail. This is just part of the changelog indicating that the cairo bug was in the driver itself. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I thought this was seen with ATI and NVidia drivers too. :-/ Also, Cairo is up to 1.12.2 (current patch applies and I already symlinked it in the repo). -- DJ Lucas -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content, and is believed to be clean. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] [blfs-book] r10058 - in trunk/BOOK: . introduction/welcome postlfs/editors x/lib
On 05/02/2012 11:32 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: I can see both sides of the discussion here. If someone works on a section of the book for quite a while, I think it's natural to develop a sense of 'ownership' of that work. I don't think anyone would object if another comes in and corrects a misspelling or md5sum or somthing like that. We should be able to touch up each other's work, but things that would appear to be style are not quite so simple. And sometimes that ownership sticks for a long time! ;-) The easy way out is to ask in advance and offer to make the change. The key is trying to avoid surprises. I agree in principal, but I'll go on record and say that if anybody wants to do something with packages that are historically mineplease speak up and then get to work! I'm thankful that Andy and Fernando teamed up to do LibreOffice. I hate that the book can suffer in any way just because I can't dedicate the time I'd like to. For instance, right now, the previously mentioned OpenJDK changes are probably a month out yet. I wouldn't be the least bit hurt if somebody else wanted to do it faster. I'd certainly appreciate consulting, but it is not necessary. Same thing for Xorg. 7.7 should be out very soon, and I think it could definitely benefit from some style other than that outdated layout I added several years ago. One suggestion, for instance, is to separate out the parts only used for testing the X server (twm, xinit, mesa demos). These aren't part of the katamari nor is Xp which was required for Java. Another, if done correctly, the packages could even be separated out instead of arbitrarily assigning a build number to it (the -2 in 7.6-2). Even though I've recently argued against it, there is some merit to separating the xorg packages. Now, I will continue to argue against adding 200+ pages to the book, but having thought about it a little more, something with the organization of the Python modules page for each section might make a nice compromise. I suggest that we still use the wget and md5 files and a loop, but also provide descriptions and dependencies on the page. I don't have the time or desire to do that, but as it is right now, there is absolutely no documentation on what might or might not be needed. I suspect that many of us just build the whole enchilada, which completely negates the point of separating the packages in the first place. We might as well just write a Makefile with a World target. The fonts are another thing. We probably need only the font-util package and an assortment of TTF fonts now that the legacy packages are gone. -- DJ Lucas -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content, and is believed to be clean. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
