On 05/20/2013 07:43 PM, Simon Schampijer wrote:
On 05/20/2013 05:52 PM, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
On 20 May 2013 12:48, Daniel Narvaez dwnarv...@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, great. Would be fantastic if '--help' would print the list of
possible
arguments.
I'd like to avoid maintaining the docs in
On 21 May 2013 10:15, Simon Schampijer si...@schampijer.de wrote:
Pulling today I got:
[erikos@t61 sugar-build]$ ./osbuild pull
= Updating build system =
* Pulling sugar-build
Already up-to-date.
= Pulling =
* Pulling automake
* Pulling glib
* Pulling gobject-introspection
*
On 21 May 2013 01:47, Manuel Quiñones ma...@laptop.org wrote:
So if we were to follow fashion, Mocha would be the one :P . But I
think the simplistic approach of Jasmine is good enough for us,
specially considering the involvement of new devs. Jasmine is a bit
more readable and elegant too.
On 21 May 2013 01:47, Manuel Quiñones ma...@laptop.org wrote:
I gave a try to Intern http://theintern.io/ . It looks quite
interesting and can do both, BDD and TDD, and async. But 1. is too
new (released a few days ago) and 2. unless we want continuous
integration support (CI) or Selenium
2013/5/21 Daniel Narvaez dwnarv...@gmail.com:
On 21 May 2013 01:47, Manuel Quiñones ma...@laptop.org wrote:
So if we were to follow fashion, Mocha would be the one :P . But I
think the simplistic approach of Jasmine is good enough for us,
specially considering the involvement of new devs.
On 20 May 2013 12:39, Daniel Narvaez dwnarv...@gmail.com wrote:
* All the Account methods returns what expected.
* All the MenuItem signals are emitted as expected.
* Calling set_metadata results in the expected change to the journal
object.
On a second thought I'm not sure it make sense to
2013/5/20 Manuel Quiñones ma...@laptop.org:
2013/5/20 Daniel Narvaez dwnarv...@gmail.com:
Accidentally sent the previous email. Sorry.
New module with the test activity, I can transfer to sugarlabs if we agree
on the approach. I'm pretty happy with it, it doesn't even require to touch
On 05/20/13 08:07, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
If you could make that
developer.sugarlabs.org http://developer.sugarlabs.org -
http://sugarlabs.org/~buildbot/docs/index.md.html (notice the md)
that would make my life a little easier.
Done.
What about doc.sugarlabs.org? Is it still current? Is
On 21 May 2013 17:21, Bernie Innocenti ber...@sugarlabs.org wrote:
On 05/20/13 08:07, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
If you could make that
developer.sugarlabs.org http://developer.sugarlabs.org -
http://sugarlabs.org/~buildbot/docs/index.md.html (notice the md)
that would make my life a
http://developer.sugarlabs.org/
This is work-in-progress but we eventually would like it to be the entry
point for new developers. The documents are generated from markdown text
files in the sugar-docs repository
git://github.com/sugarlabs/sugar-docs.git
If you want to make any change, pull
The build slaves are all back green, so hopefully things are back to
sanity. If you run into any issue please let me know.
Unfortunately a clean clone might be necessary for stuff to work out of the
box, if you haven't cloned recently.
I will try to do changes more gradually and carefully in the
Question for the sugar-web-activities framework developers:
* With the actual implementation, do we _really_ need webkit2?
You can say, why? We already decided that!
I know, but thinking in the following months:
* If we continue going with webkit2, the only way to develop web
activities, will
On 21 May 2013 20:31, Gonzalo Odiard gonz...@laptop.org wrote:
Question for the sugar-web-activities framework developers:
* With the actual implementation, do we _really_ need webkit2?
Probably not. It should be easy to give it a try, the API didn't change
that much.
* If we continue
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Daniel Narvaez dwnarv...@gmail.com wrote:
On 21 May 2013 20:31, Gonzalo Odiard gonz...@laptop.org wrote:
Question for the sugar-web-activities framework developers:
* With the actual implementation, do we _really_ need webkit2?
Probably not. It should be
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Gonzalo Odiard gonz...@laptop.org wrote:
Question for the sugar-web-activities framework developers:
* With the actual implementation, do we _really_ need webkit2?
You can say, why? We already decided that!
I know, but thinking in the following months:
*
webkit2 is included in F18 and is in OLPC builds. Has anyone checked
if it is good enough to run the latest webapp stuff? There may be no
need to go back to webkit1 if you want to continue on this path.
I can'see webkit2 installed in 13.2.0, what is the package?
[olpc@xo-1e-88-13 logs]$ rpm
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Gonzalo Odiard gonz...@laptop.org wrote:
webkit2 is included in F18 and is in OLPC builds. Has anyone checked
if it is good enough to run the latest webapp stuff? There may be no
need to go back to webkit1 if you want to continue on this path.
I can'see
webkitgtk3
I think that is webkit, no webkit2
Gonzalo
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
On 21 May 2013 17:03, Manuel Quiñones ma...@laptop.org wrote:
Feel free to move sugar-html-test to sugarlabs user.
Done.
I checked out the karma branch, and got it working doing the change in
karma.conf.js:
browsers = ['sugar-html-test'];
I sent a pull request to make this change.
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 2:02 PM, Gonzalo Odiard gonz...@laptop.org wrote:
webkitgtk3
I think that is webkit, no webkit2
How are you coming to that conclusion?
I just checked the spec file, webkit2 compilation is enabled, and the
lib appears installed as /usr/lib/libwebkit2gtk-3.0.so.18.0.5
I was confused by the rpm number, my mistake.
[olpc@xo-1e-88-13 logs]$ rpm -ql webkitgtk3 | grep typelib
/usr/lib/girepository-1.0/JSCore-3.0.typelib
/usr/lib/girepository-1.0/WebKit-3.0.typelib
/usr/lib/girepository-1.0/WebKit2-3.0.typelib
Looks like the two libraries are packaged in the same
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 6:21 AM, Walter Bender walter.ben...@gmail.com wrote:
Perfection is the enemy of the good.
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Daniel Narvaez dwnarv...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
we need to decide if we want the next release to be 1.0 or 0.100.
Here is the features we are
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 4:39 AM, Daniel Narvaez dwnarv...@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 May 2013 12:19, Bastien b...@laptop.org wrote:
Sean DALY sdaly...@gmail.com writes:
I feel that 0.100 is even more unmarketable than 0.98.
Agreed. Mathematically, it reads like a regression. Instead of
On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 05:09:38 PM Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
I was confused by the rpm number, my mistake.
[olpc@xo-1e-88-13 logs]$ rpm -ql webkitgtk3 | grep typelib
/usr/lib/girepository-1.0/JSCore-3.0.typelib
/usr/lib/girepository-1.0/WebKit-3.0.typelib
On 21 May 2013 23:43, Daniel Francis fran...@sugarlabs.org wrote:
On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 05:09:38 PM Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
I was confused by the rpm number, my mistake.
[olpc@xo-1e-88-13 logs]$ rpm -ql webkitgtk3 | grep typelib
/usr/lib/girepository-1.0/JSCore-3.0.typelib
Almost done!
We are successfully running the sugar-html-graphics test in buildbot. The
only bit left is to redirect the logs so that they don't mix up with the
shell ones and buildbot can watch them. I posted a couple of sugar patches
that will make that possible
Activity Homepage:
http://activities.sugarlabs.org/addon/4191
Sugar Platform:
0.82 - 0.100
Download Now:
http://activities.sugarlabs.org/downloads/file/28584/clock-13.xo
Release notes:
* Use standard lips icon for speech features (thanks Walter!)
* Feature allowing dragging of clock hands to
On 21 May 2013 23:32, Sameer Verma sve...@sfsu.edu wrote:
Speaking of activities in the Sugar sense, I was wondering how many
of the HTML5 apps from FirefoxOS would slide over to our platform with
little change. I just got my hands on a Geeksphone Peak
(http://www.geeksphone.com/) and have
== Source ==
http://download.sugarlabs.org/sources/honey/Clock/Clock-13.tar.bz2
== Bundle ==
http://activities.sugarlabs.org/en-US/sugar/downloads/file/28584/clock-13.xo
== News ==
* Use standard lips icon for speech features (thanks Walter!)
* Feature allowing dragging of clock hands to
We have sugar-build use packages for certain packages on Fedora 19 that
aren't available on Fedora 18 already (ragel, node, npm), so why not
just add webkitgtk to the list as well? It makes sense enough to me,
provided we're pulling a compatible version.
To that end, I've already submitted a
30 matches
Mail list logo
