Zitat von Derek Atkins de...@ihtfp.com:
As for the 2.5.0 tag: You've removed the line from the correct tag file. I
don't know why it didn't run. I did the same thing a few minutes ago: I
removed the 2.5.0 line from the file c:\soft\packaging\tags and ran the
build_tags.sh script in that
Christian Stimming christ...@cstimming.de writes:
Zitat von Derek Atkins de...@ihtfp.com:
As for the 2.5.0 tag: You've removed the line from the correct tag file. I
don't know why it didn't run. I did the same thing a few minutes ago: I
removed the 2.5.0 line from the file
Zitat von Derek Atkins warl...@mit.edu:
@Derek: Can you remove the c:\soft\gnome directory and trigger the
normal build manually? If the gnome directory has a problem, we will
see the same error in the normal build's output then.
Yep, just did that and look, it failed. :) The error was
Christian Stimming christ...@cstimming.de writes:
Zitat von Derek Atkins warl...@mit.edu:
@Derek: Can you remove the c:\soft\gnome directory and trigger the
normal build manually? If the gnome directory has a problem, we will
see the same error in the normal build's output then.
Yep, just
Derek Atkins warl...@mit.edu writes:
Ok, r22864 is the next try. In February, the pixman installation was
removed, but one final check for it still remained.
Can you trigger the build again? No need to remove anything tho.
Christian
Triggered, and it definitely made it past the gnome
Zitat von Derek Atkins warl...@mit.edu:
Triggered, and it definitely made it past the gnome step. Right now
it's building the gnucash code itself so I would call it progress.
If this succeeds then we probably need to re-tag 2.5.0. I'll keep an
eye out and send another message.
FYI, trunk
Christian Stimming christ...@cstimming.de writes:
Zitat von Derek Atkins warl...@mit.edu:
Triggered, and it definitely made it past the gnome step. Right now
it's building the gnucash code itself so I would call it progress.
If this succeeds then we probably need to re-tag 2.5.0. I'll keep
On Apr 2, 2013, at 9:16 AM, Derek Atkins warl...@mit.edu wrote:
Christian Stimming christ...@cstimming.de writes:
Zitat von Derek Atkins warl...@mit.edu:
Triggered, and it definitely made it past the gnome step. Right now
it's building the gnucash code itself so I would call it progress.
On Tue, April 2, 2013 12:57 pm, John Ralls wrote:
On Apr 2, 2013, at 9:16 AM, Derek Atkins warl...@mit.edu wrote:
Christian Stimming christ...@cstimming.de writes:
Zitat von Derek Atkins warl...@mit.edu:
Triggered, and it definitely made it past the gnome step. Right now
it's building
On Apr 2, 2013, at 10:36 AM, Derek Atkins de...@ihtfp.com wrote:
On Tue, April 2, 2013 12:57 pm, John Ralls wrote:
On Apr 2, 2013, at 9:16 AM, Derek Atkins warl...@mit.edu wrote:
Christian Stimming christ...@cstimming.de writes:
Zitat von Derek Atkins warl...@mit.edu:
Triggered, and
On Tue, April 2, 2013 1:44 pm, John Ralls wrote:
OK, Retagged. I'll proceed with everything else this afternoon -- I have
to go to an appointment now.
That's fine. I'll fire it off if I get the chance, or just let it fire
itself tonight..
ISTM we'll want one more 2.4 release this summer,
On Tue, April 2, 2013 1:44 pm, John Ralls wrote:
ISTM we'll want one more 2.4 release this summer, so it would be good to
get it fixed. Do we know for sure that what's wrong there isn't also
broken on trunk/2.5?
Actually, I was wrong. The 2.4 branch build did copy over. Mea Culpa. I
was
Am Montag, 1. April 2013, 13:12:15 schrieb Derek Atkins:
Derek Atkins de...@ihtfp.com writes:
Hi there.
One more update.
It looks like the 2.4 daily build completed and uploaded just fine.
However it did not go ahead and build the 2.5.0 tag.
I don't know why it didn't (re-?)build
Hi,
On Mon, April 1, 2013 3:53 pm, Christian Stimming wrote:
Am Montag, 1. April 2013, 13:12:15 schrieb Derek Atkins:
Derek Atkins de...@ihtfp.com writes:
Hi there.
One more update.
It looks like the 2.4 daily build completed and uploaded just fine.
However it did not go ahead and
14 matches
Mail list logo
