On 16 June 2012 04:30, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
> > * The port of the shell to gobject-introspection will require
> > developers to build master of a few GNOME repositories. Even worst,
> > the Sugar touch work will require to build gtk+ code which has yet to
> > be written
>
> Ouch. I hope any we
On Fri, 2012-06-15 at 14:16 +0200, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
> * We are still in the middle of the gobject-introspection/gtk3
> transition. Adding another bunch of invasive changes to the source
> repository would likely slow that work down and introduce more
> instability. We don't have enough resour
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
> thanks for your spiritual support :) I tested on Fedora 17 32-bit and it
> worked for me. I'd appreciate if you could:
I don't have F17 32 bits anymore :( . I was so angry that I installed
F17 64 bits (this time I chose for the easy solutio
Hi Bernie,
thanks for your feedback. This gives me a chance to explain where the idea
of sugar-build came from and where I see it going in the longer term.
I actually started to look into the issue from Marco's sugar-core. I think
in an ideal world that's what we would want to have right now. And
On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 12:06 +0200, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
> * I think these tools are used by few people because they don't work
> well. I know despite having a lot of experience with GNOME and linux
> builds I was highly frustrated by sugar-jhbuild complexity and
> unreliability. I'm sure a lot of
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 10:11:15PM +0200, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
> [...]
> git pull (to pull the new bug reporting stuff I pushed)
> [...]
> make bug-report
>
> That will generate a tarball with logs, if you send it to me I'll
> take a look at what is going on.
Now that's service! Well done.
--
Hi Manuel,
thanks for your spiritual support :) I tested on Fedora 17 32-bit and it
worked for me. I'd appreciate if you could:
git pull (to pull the new bug reporting stuff I pushed)
make clean
make build
... look at it failing ...
make bug-report
That will generate a tarball with logs, if y
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 7:17 AM, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
> I want to support both 32 and 64 and it might already work. I haven't tested
> with 32 yet honestly though, I will do that today.
Cool! I tried a lot and I couldn't build it. It would be great if you
reach this goal!
I didn't take a look a
Hi Manuel,
I want to support both 32 and 64 and it might already work. I haven't
tested with 32 yet honestly though, I will do that today. Then I will
clarify in the README. This also reminds me that we woud better have
buildbots for both arches.
Thanks!
Daniel
On 14 June 2012 04:56, Manuel Kauf
Hi Gonzalo,
thanks a lot for your feedback.
To answer your general point:
* I think these tools are used by few people because they don't work well.
I know despite having a lot of experience with GNOME and linux builds I was
highly frustrated by sugar-jhbuild complexity and unreliability. I'm su
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
> == Fedora 17 ==
>
> Works out of the box!
Some questions :)
What version of Fedora 17?
32 or 64 bits?
Could you make it work on Fedora 17 32 bits?
--
Kaufmann Manuel
Blog: http://humitos.wordpress.com/
Porfolio: http://fotos.mkaufmann.co
On the other hand, this is a useful competition of ideas for the task
of building Sugar, and if it works better then we are all empowered.
Daniel Narvaez seems keen to maintain it, so the cost of maintenance
should not be a problem.
As for myself, I have never been able to build Sugar. Maybe thi
>From one side, it's great to have more people interested in the build
tools, thanks!
But is really bad start again with another solution (sugar-jhbuild, sweets,
sugar-build...),
this tools are not used by too much people, then the cost of maintain it,
is very high.
If you are working in a solution
Hello,
I'm trying to figure out how to make building sugar from source easier and
more reliable. I wrote a new set of build scripts that I'm hoping will
improve the situation. They are not too dissimilar from sugar-jhbuild but
there a few key differences.
The code is here:
https://github.com/dnar
14 matches
Mail list logo
