> -Original Message-
> From: Jean-Michel POURE [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 30 June 2003 11:03
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] wxWindows Build
>
>
> On Monday 30 June 2003 11:23, Dave Page wrote:
> > Proba
> -Original Message-
> From: Raphaël Enrici [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 29 June 2003 23:19
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] wxWindows Build
>
>
> Here is my new "plan" :
> may be
On Monday 30 June 2003 11:23, Dave Page wrote:
> Probably if i new the time/timezone at which it was created. There may
> also be some bootstraps to run before it's usable and I don't know what
> that is.
A simple "autoconf" should suffice as explained in the wxWindows docs. I will
have a try lat
> -Original Message-
> From: Jean-Michel POURE [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 30 June 2003 10:21
> To: Dave Page; Andreas Pflug
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] wxWindows Build
>
>
> On Monday 30 June 2003 11:08
On Monday 30 June 2003 11:08, Dave Page wrote:
> It's not on the wx site any more - can you email a copy of ftp it to
> Snake please?
Do you mean it cannot be fetched using CVS?
Cheers, Jean-Michel
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: you can get off al
> -Original Message-
> From: Andreas Pflug [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 28 June 2003 09:40
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] wxWindows Build
>
>
> Dave Page wrote:
>
>
Hi Dave,
Dave Page wrote:
OK. I will (time allowing), add a patched wx2.5 tarball to Snake for use as our 'supported' version. Due to the changes in wx, we should probably stick with this version (fixing any bugs we find ourselves) until 2.5 is formally released. Sound OK? wxPython is a non-issue
Hi Raphaël,
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 28 June 2003 11:20
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] wxWindows Build
>
>
> here is what I'm planning to do conce
Dave Page wrote:
It's rumoured that Andreas Pflug once said:
We need our own version at the moment, which may be based on 2003-06-07
or 2003-06-18, and has the additional wxString patch to support that's
still open.
Shal we go with the later one then if we know it's good, and stick a
patc
Hi all,
Message d'origine
>Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 00:09:57 +0200
>De: Andreas Pflug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>A: Dave Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Copie à: "Adam H. Pendleton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Sujet: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] wxWindows Bu
It's rumoured that Andreas Pflug once said:
> We need our own version at the moment, which may be based on 2003-06-07
> or 2003-06-18, and has the additional wxString patch to support that's
> still open.
Shal we go with the later one then if we know it's good, and stick a
patched tarball on Sn
Dave Page wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Andreas Pflug [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 27 June 2003 21:45
To: Dave Page
Cc: Adam H. Pendleton; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] wxWindows Build
Dave Page wrote:
As far as I am aware it is just the Unicode support
> -Original Message-
> From: Andreas Pflug [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 27 June 2003 21:45
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: Adam H. Pendleton; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] wxWindows Build
>
>
> Dave Page wrote:
>
> > As far as I am
Dave Page wrote:
As far as I am aware it is just the Unicode support that we use 2.5 for.
Nope.
The dialog metrics are vastly improved in 2.5, so gtk really looks the
same as win32. Most strings won't fit in gtk if 2.4 if used, the fonts
are really messed up.
Still, I wonder about this versio
Title: Message
-Original Message-From: Adam H.
Pendleton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 26 June 2003
16:04To: Dave PageCc:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers]
wxWindows BuildDave Page wrote:
Yeuch. Have we completely removed the 2.4 targ
Dave Page wrote:
Message
Yeuch. Have we completely removed the 2.4
target now? How about the Mac port is non-Unicode only for now?
Regards, Dave.
Not sure what you mean here. Do you mean can we stil use wxMac 2.4? I
have no idea; I don't know why the requirement for wxW
Title: Message
-Original Message-From: Adam H.
Pendleton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 26 June 2003
13:48To: Dave PageCc:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers]
wxWindows Build
Damned if I know. I tried a few last night, and had problems with
Dave Page wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 26 June 2003 02:38
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [pgadmin-hackers] wxWindows Build
I should point out (perhaps as I should have before) that the
2003-06-07 CVS tree of
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 26 June 2003 02:38
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [pgadmin-hackers] wxWindows Build
>
>
> I should point out (perhaps as I should have before) that the
> 2003-06-07 CVS
> I should point out (perhaps as I should have before) that the 2003-06-07
> CVS tree of wxWindows does not build on Mac OS X. That should be reason
> enough to upgrade the CVS tree.
>
> ahp
>
> ---(end of broadcast)---
> TIP 3: if posting/reading th
I should point out (perhaps as I should have before) that the 2003-06-07
CVS tree of wxWindows does not build on Mac OS X. That should be reason
enough to upgrade the CVS tree.
ahp
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet,
21 matches
Mail list logo
