> Well, I would hope that we don't need to do grunt homework for the
> wxwidgets upstream. If developers are so stupid to adopt an unstable
> and unusable product for their programs, it is their bad choice
> not a problem of us.
As long as we ship software using broken libraries it _IS_ our prob
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 10:59:06AM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 04:03:56PM +0100, Loïc Minier wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 09, 2007, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> > > So what about that? 2.8 is around since almost 1 year, and this delay
> > > is not justifiable IMHO. T
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 10:52:47AM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> future 3.0 is definitively a per-program ones, it is not
> a duty of the library package.
s/package/packager/
--
Francesco P. Lovergine
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trou
On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 04:03:56PM +0100, Loïc Minier wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 09, 2007, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> > So what about that? 2.8 is around since almost 1 year, and this delay
> > is not justifiable IMHO. There are now tons of developers and
> > maintainers that need to build against 2
On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 07:51:31PM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>
> >
> > So what about that? 2.8 is around since almost 1 year, and this delay
> > is not justifiable IMHO. There are now tons of developers and
> > maintainers that need to build against 2.8, and I doubt a transition
> > plan from 2
>
> So what about that? 2.8 is around since almost 1 year, and this delay
> is not justifiable IMHO. There are now tons of developers and
> maintainers that need to build against 2.8, and I doubt a transition
> plan from 2.6 has sense due to API and behaviors changes. We have
> simply to cope wit
On Fri, Nov 09, 2007, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> So what about that? 2.8 is around since almost 1 year, and this delay
> is not justifiable IMHO. There are now tons of developers and
> maintainers that need to build against 2.8, and I doubt a transition
> plan from 2.6 has sense due to API and
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 09:00:00PM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 02:45:25AM +0200, Pierre THIERRY wrote:
> > Scribit Roberto C. Sánchez dies 04/10/2007 hora 18:13:
> > > > wxWidgets has been released a long time ago and we're still missing
> > > > it.
> > > Yes, though
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 02:45:25AM +0200, Pierre THIERRY wrote:
> Scribit Roberto C. Sánchez dies 04/10/2007 hora 18:13:
> > > wxWidgets has been released a long time ago and we're still missing
> > > it.
> > Yes, though for a good [1] reason.
>
> Sure, wxwidgets has numerous bugs, but is it that
Scribit Roberto C. Sánchez dies 04/10/2007 hora 18:13:
> > wxWidgets has been released a long time ago and we're still missing
> > it.
> Yes, though for a good [1] reason.
Sure, wxwidgets has numerous bugs, but is it that surprising for a
library package that much used? (i.e. would such a backlog
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 09:53:41PM +0200, "Adam Cécile (Le_Vert)" wrote:
> Hello developers,
>
> I'm writing you this mail to be sure everybody is aware of this issue
> and with the hope that someone will be interrested in fixing it ;)
>
Lots of people are aware. Just look at the bugs against th
Hello developers,
I'm writing you this mail to be sure everybody is aware of this issue
and with the hope that someone will be interrested in fixing it ;)
wxWidgets has been released a long time ago and we're still missing it.
wx2.8 has been packaged for Ubuntu [1] so most of the initial packagi
12 matches
Mail list logo
