Re: [matplotlib-devel] Freetype 2.4.4

2011-03-06 Thread Jouni K . Seppänen
Eric Firing writes: > However, I have run nosetests on a build of master on Ubuntu 10.10, with > freetype 2.4.2, and I see the same failure that you showed on the > font_styles test. Same test on a build of v1.0.x, same failure. Fails > for png and svg; passes for pdf, but the images being c

Re: [matplotlib-devel] Freetype 2.4.4

2011-03-06 Thread Eric Firing
On 03/06/2011 02:08 AM, Jouni K. Seppänen wrote: > Eric Firing writes: > >> Newer versions of the libraries can also be used, although this is not >> critical. v1.0.x still needs the 1.2 series of libpng, but master can >> now handle >> >> ZLIBVERSION=1.2.5 >> PNGVERSION=1.5.1 >> FREETYPEVERSION=

Re: [matplotlib-devel] make.osx: should it set --prefix=$PREFIX ?

2011-03-06 Thread Darren Dale
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 4:46 AM, Jouni K. Seppänen wrote: > Fernando Garcia Bermudez writes: > >> Do you know if these changes will trickle to the py3 repo after >> merging into master? > > I don't know if we have a process in place for that. It depends on how > you view the py3 repo: if it's just

[matplotlib-devel] buggy legend behavior with "_nolegend_" label?

2011-03-06 Thread Jae-Joon Lee
Hi, According to the legend doc, If label is set to '_nolegend_', the item will not be shown in legend. But I think the documented behavior a bit ambiguous. For example, consider the example below. l1, = plot([1,2,3], label="_nolegend_") l2, = plot([2,3,1]) legend(["my line"

Re: [matplotlib-devel] make.osx: should it set --prefix=$PREFIX ?

2011-03-06 Thread Jouni K . Seppänen
Fernando Garcia Bermudez writes: > Do you know if these changes will trickle to the py3 repo after > merging into master? I don't know if we have a process in place for that. It depends on how you view the py3 repo: if it's just another feature branch, it shouldn't do any merges from master just

Re: [matplotlib-devel] make.osx: should it set --prefix=$PREFIX ?

2011-03-06 Thread Fernando Garcia Bermudez
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 23:52, Jouni K. Seppänen wrote: > Thanks; pull request #17 is IMHO ready for merging into v1.0.x, but > let's wait to see if anyone has further comments. I created pull request > #30 for merging into master; that one also has newer dependency versions > as suggested by Eric