correct:
Manterola writes ("Re: 25+2 packages with (Glade) generated C source files
without the source"):
> On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 10:17 PM, Sami Liedes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [ stuff ]
>
> No. .c files are still source code.
This is not correct. `Source c
On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 09:12:34AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> I’m pretty sure many of the list are in similar cases. Now loading the
> UI directly into the application is the standard, but not so long ago
> people generated template code with glade and then edited it by hand.
> The .glade fil
On Sat, 2008-08-30 at 23:19 -0300, Margarita Manterola wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 10:17 PM, Sami Liedes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The only questionable case I found
> > by this sampling is dia, where the file is "generated by Glade and
> > then hand-coded to make GNOME optional and add t
Le dimanche 31 août 2008 à 04:17 +0300, Sami Liedes a écrit :
> I went through some of these and checked them by hand, and generally
> couldn't find the glade project anywhere in the source tarball (it
> might be in the diff, I didn't check for that - would that BTW be OK,
> to have source code in
On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 10:17 PM, Sami Liedes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I grepped the source tarballs in Lenny (testing) main section for the
> note "DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE - it is generated by Glade." which
> indicates the file is generated using the Glade UI editor. Then I
> checked if these p
[Note that I'm not subscribed to either d-d or d-legal so if you want
to ask me something, the quickest way is to Cc: me]
Hi,
I grepped the source tarballs in Lenny (testing) main section for the
note "DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE - it is generated by Glade." which
indicates the file is generated using
6 matches
Mail list logo
