not subscribed, I can't
stand the flames anymore). So please put back you gun in your holster, I'm
not a target, what I did was motivated, should not have broken people's
build and I will fix the jhbuild side effect anyway.
Daniel
--
Daniel Veillard | Red Hat Desktop team http://redhat.com
Daniel Veillard wrote:
can you be a bit more specific ? What exactly does not allow people to
run configure under Windows ? Lots of projects build fine under windows
using the standard autotools set.
The serious libxml2 contributors on Windows don't run cygwin or migwin.
Most of the
for the ChangeLog version number.
In the long term it might be worth asking one of the Windows developers
to take a look at this. It would remove the need to store the file in
CVS, and give more accurate version information in the win32 builds.
That's not going to happen. This issue is not a jhbuild specific
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 09:41:48PM -0500, Federico Mena Quintero wrote:
Hi,
A few days ago I did cvs remove of libxslt/libxslt/xsltwin32config.h
because it got CVS conflicts on every update, as it is a generated file.
It was breaking every jhbuild session, and I got annoyed. So I removed
At the moment, jhbuild requires Python = 2.0.
I was wondering if it would inconvenience anyone if I increased the
minimum version requirement to 2.2 or 2.3 at some point.
For reference, 2.2 was released on 21 December, 2001 (3.5 years ago),
and 2.3 was released 29 July 2003 (2 years ago).
James
Il giorno mar, 21/06/2005 alle 14.16 +0800, James Henstridge ha scritto:
At the moment, jhbuild requires Python = 2.0.
I was wondering if it would inconvenience anyone if I increased the
minimum version requirement to 2.2 or 2.3 at some point.
For reference, 2.2 was released on 21 December
On Tue, 2005-06-21 at 14:16 +0800, James Henstridge wrote:
At the moment, jhbuild requires Python = 2.0.
I was wondering if it would inconvenience anyone if I increased the
minimum version requirement to 2.2 or 2.3 at some point.
Would this mean we could drop Python from the bootstrap
On Tue, 2005-14-06 at 08:22 +0800, James Henstridge wrote:
The problem is that newer pkg-config's pkg.m4 caches PKG_CHECK_MODULES()
...
James.
Having had quite a few pains myself when trying to build gnome from
jhbuild, I wonder if it would be better to have a [EMAIL PROTECTED]
for quickly
On 6/14/05, Ryan McDougall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2005-14-06 at 08:22 +0800, James Henstridge wrote:
The problem is that newer pkg-config's pkg.m4 caches PKG_CHECK_MODULES()
...
James.
Having had quite a few pains myself when trying to build gnome from
jhbuild, I wonder
hal doesn't build in jhbuild beacuse dbus didn't install
dbus-gtype-specialized.h in $prefix/include/dbus-1.0/dbus
I don't have any install-fu magic, so no patch : sorry ;)
regs,
--
cedric
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list
On 6/13/05, Cédric Marcone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hal doesn't build in jhbuild beacuse dbus didn't install
dbus-gtype-specialized.h in $prefix/include/dbus-1.0/dbus
I don't have any install-fu magic, so no patch : sorry ;)
Yeah, a commit from Colin Walters (applying a patch from Ross
On Mon, 2005-06-13 at 07:16 -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
On 6/13/05, Cdric Marcone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hal doesn't build in jhbuild beacuse dbus didn't install
dbus-gtype-specialized.h in $prefix/include/dbus-1.0/dbus
I don't have any install-fu magic, so no patch : sorry ;)
Yeah
On Mon, 2005-06-13 at 12:42 +0100, Ross Burton wrote:
Hackish patch to fix this attached. Expect something similar and some
other patches which slipped through the cracks to be committed later
today
I added a fix for this, not quite that patch but similar.
signature.asc
Description: This
And the tinderbox succeeds now (at least, hal does :). Thanks...
Luis
On 6/13/05, Colin Walters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2005-06-13 at 12:42 +0100, Ross Burton wrote:
Hackish patch to fix this attached. Expect something similar and some
other patches which slipped through the
eog from CVS doesn't build with jhbuild :
configure: error: Package requirements (gtk+-2.0 = 2.6.0 gdk-pixbuf-2.0
= 2.4.0 gnome-vfs-2.0 = 2.5.91 libgnomeui-2.0 = 2.5.92 libglade-2.0
= 2.3.6 libart-2.0 = 2.3.16 libexif = 0.5.12 libexif = 0.5.12) were
not met.
The only thing that was not built
Le lundi 13 juin 2005 19:48 +0200, Cdric Marcone a crit :
eog from CVS doesn't build with jhbuild :
configure: error: Package requirements (gtk+-2.0 = 2.6.0 gdk-pixbuf-2.0
= 2.4.0 gnome-vfs-2.0 = 2.5.91 libgnomeui-2.0 = 2.5.92 libglade-2.0
= 2.3.6 libart-2.0 = 2.3.16 libexif = 0.5.12
Cdric Marcone wrote:
Le lundi 13 juin 2005 19:48 +0200, Cdric Marcone a crit :
eog from CVS doesn't build with jhbuild :
configure: error: Package requirements (gtk+-2.0 = 2.6.0 gdk-pixbuf-2.0
= 2.4.0 gnome-vfs-2.0 = 2.5.91 libgnomeui-2.0 = 2.5.92 libglade-2.0
= 2.3.6 libart-2.0
Jeroen Zwartepoorte wrote:
Hi,
In the last couple of days i've built gnome-2.11 using jhbuild about
10 times so far. It builds fine (uncovered some gcc4-related bugs,
filed them and they're fixed; apply a hal patch to n-c-b etc.). This
is on a Fedora system, with up-to-date packages from
Pat Suwalski wrote:
I was hoping to test your theory this evening, but I can't get very far
in the build, which dies at gtk because of:
./.libs/libgtk-x11-2.0.so: undefined reference to
`g_utf8_collate_key_for_filename'
On further thought, this must be because it's trying to link against
Hi,
In the last couple of days i've built gnome-2.11 using jhbuild about
10 times so far. It builds fine (uncovered some gcc4-related bugs,
filed them and they're fixed; apply a hal patch to n-c-b etc.). This
is on a Fedora system, with up-to-date packages from rawhide.
However, after it has
Hi.
I tried building HEAD off jhbuild last night and today and the result of
logging in doing some small tasks in the panel and opening a terminal
etc.
I filed one bug against gdk with a cairo related leak already, and I
found another one that I have a patch for in gnome-screenshooter.
Other
401 - 421 of 421 matches
Mail list logo
