Enlightenment CVS wrote:
Enlightenment CVS committal
Author : raster
Project : e17
Module : apps/e
Dir : e17/apps/e
Modified Files:
configure.in enlightenment.pc.in
Log Message:
fix pc file to not inlcude dbus verbatim includes. just -D's for config
Well, you
On Wed, 06 Aug 2008 08:32:31 +0200 Sebastian Dransfeld
[EMAIL PROTECTED] babbled:
Enlightenment CVS wrote:
Enlightenment CVS committal
Author : raster
Project : e17
Module : apps/e
Dir : e17/apps/e
Modified Files:
configure.in enlightenment.pc.in
Log
Here's some example code:
https://garage.maemo.org/plugins/scmsvn/viewcvs.php/branches/prototypes_0.7/ui/gauges/evasutil.c?root=carmanview=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 [EMAIL
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
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
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
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
Dir
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-COPYING.PLAIN
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.
I
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 Eina now. Just more
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 PROTECTED] wrote:
Have fun
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:
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 4:07
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, 2008
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: [EMAIL
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, i
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 like
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?
Ok,
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, Aug 6,
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://profusion.mobi
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 on
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
this
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. And I
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 said was,
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 unhealthy
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
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 specifically
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 another
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 abstraction
to
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 as it
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 that components get
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 wants to
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 to be lpgl
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 you
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 gotten attention, not
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:
You're going to
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:
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 9:01 PM,
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 be
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 this. And yes,
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 core libs.
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 do with this,
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 opinion
between various
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
that
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
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
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*
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
or
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 user
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
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
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 your
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 in the
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 now?
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 crowd
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
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 me down
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 later date
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
70 matches
Mail list logo
