Re: [sword-devel] Sword 1.6.2 NOW!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 14.09.2010 01:07, Troy A. Griffitts wrote: We plan to release soon, but didn't know there was an urgent need. There are things unreleasable in head right now which need to be removed if we release 1.6.2 sooner rather than later. Why not branch? I was under the impression all distros already had our patch in their distribution. What distros release 1.6.1 unpatched? Since there has probably been no announcement from Sword that distros should patch, all have learned it the hard way. I know for sure that Gentoo doesn't have it patched. If I remember correctly, an OpenSUSE user was the last to report the bug to BibleTime, so maybe OpenSUSE still has it unpatched. I'd rather ask you the opposite: Do you know specifically which distributions actually have it patched? Regards, Jaak -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux) iQgcBAEBAgAGBQJMjxWVAAoJEFqwhAoGc/hvZaY//A90RGpGyoAYZ87F++NwsARl ofOifA4VjMgFa3KQowq63usa15ReY43wu5z/VrzmwwgaZ0KyKszX0gK+rFc+Hxmd lT/kCAt7UhCZeejjxHJ+Lv7AiJBDkMvxjh1mHr08E7/tVuGb3ObWoPOx4JJGYUKH 3RGhsCEFWty8p3NsvWNYna7YMcoL9aRJJ9HT7IZ9RzPoTTs0tDIhlpesPm0ti8gg T3qd+bc16gG+Knew2tIvQXtKE5UNYL33M72YVi8mE0gbzNPDRUPu0addgXArBbn4 vNDnt8f2qBcRsqWkmzOfdfezALwu1Fgr01by4GhlshVU48gDIqXuWeuAaDGNFyVr b3RFOSsu537MQqTsXtylIioMirpZVs+lRaAJ+9M459itlb3G1oGVEowUcT08QJ3y qx7ov/bt++ji3sKpKYHMcBOMaI/bGVx6XhH29PP9ZTuI+wu9+A0Pu+125pRrVJks qmtn2rC73grfTs6XGx2Wb5svDULh0moxb+m9+vE47whuYZJ6ZMolQCl7ZAZGD2hD k0laYVsVa8dNDrPMDldA5ginq4KPe1oaTBHSPwWEno7FB1HYtwWlisi8+ZIgWrn3 YRV+OTp8NZmyGaGgRIHqMXAYui2SSOZ6xIN6Bf4kpvRgRLWY6ioJCk5u/aceZKIg +rlc1apU8DJPOf1RuNUjOWPFib5AXBl8Jkv4npgLQdCFq3UjBxldi5N628/vHDCR MJ9IDJ/Qzvn6p+HPG2ERhOlXtWUxMihh0K4Sid7iM92HQle57C0v2ZFHi7kitDmQ sgT1Uf3D7vSA2wH2l4VmFUSirxU+COEnoDBeq5cxUG5b5S8hrf9izskq3aI3xdKz 3bB6aPFJU5ig/0RA18d9t4o6+e5Q23G0NkBb8JBBKuv1bcSGXX9rvGB1e/7UJrX5 mRfQkCdFum0DnwIgajN/8yCZ6yklEEg7h5y39nUelkgpfTcNclm0qvKLRp4pFXqA vFsrrTA6PbrZVZAsOp3GqyvLNbCPYuFkcntf0zvO+kAUqXBjHoJdieCXE04hYr2m 8ybKe62m1MB3i4wmlRXGqs+asI3dYcax+tmTficJh8U+mArN90fXpCV5XV2oIzJz P6MSZWJte/pHj841C42q9ZDqaBNad7TU7LUVqdZvjrhX5fFh8H0Qyk+8KsU4+T0p srYTIgvBBuob5wSsI8LItuQ3KfMyzTLeQyv+E0wxjq3UR7rUhoXbh0WYvT9J9Rut jb7SUwREVzRCD9ycnps+o1LVWUQwa/ABCylPmNtUg7DfEcpW96MEmalvlLQoaguo Lsz7CGa47+6oTu6wFenkmeEVG4cvTqbD1mnACOZfHNCGA/gLzEISLIhVrnnBSiNG XIcmqcCcCyr8cEFTVTG0WnZL4rXRZSBiEeAQyojQWPaX4b6RzqvL1Yti2lH3o7HK iFTX15XXnzyUHECoUIWEIcJPgeEq9UuOKTbvAnYMpEMTMEkzott6VryS9UttounX mcsRjW7odMu4sJeXSOLaj4E/vNvSWU/6wGzgdghsTI6kSJg43k0I5Y4VAGDrkw+U 5r1n1aJdIuzxHdnWue8GstJPHSiiRDjoeQZrmBjT3Nywb2ItMcNE7FwlNgAE2ZbR UtvCaBIrvvyyLBso5CaXM61+pH22ulI1//tlo7fqJjSjVTMxmb4ffbQ8H5LPOCJq vJlls1AKn5rY+cPf/vWgmIGYwmDex4nbTDFS5giuu9kOpJRZGiamg8ynbML36eEb vqfp+3vVGcUR/R3JYDB4NedQtHlkVNj1slNA4nVgDYycLNr1b+OcmtlUdFG5XH2t FQQIspreB5SZENzsQj1n1RYIQJe6MmjJveq5vZIcYq/k9xJdvbs+cdkmDnANp6Kt LqIWHVHcZ+RaOkkfeWisL8Io2Yj1qd5yuAdG68OXW1TYqFQhBZ7QID0i12ElLtjI 41XNQ5a3F0IXwd8GD7Vku+DPFAkR9S31DXEtAQvKtwelOIZbF8Rtt7KixEGI35Az OTXICupfTxwwVX75r4eIK1jFELE+PI4jSeP/Wxd/X6v8O8KHoEsnc2XQjQAUtkpY mdoEagHw4v8YI3nyWhXWHEfRxs/KGe1ImUFIVIiudBKwmArWwZWeK5t11la//ehH OLDwwKhMvWkNuuOF3dg3XUq3MpZqJVgmzUmeNUudZ3V0Frr1kZwO8pC194tcpUFa tGkMt60f3oRuewk6qyDeN3fE9rg3lcbHtLye+3A68YaDKqUTNX7emIAKAIB/1RGU eTYViRhaBPoagDA3FZZNFffr5zd7zmoEIdMGFTVnG+34K9PYhfMALuOhhJoXW+pc FsMpaudLYM68aEMIuIG30YV2kajzXK3LTQRjwwU/k1Ms1VoaadFT/kg1Cc0aThtF HBDJ5Nmc+3b8URdr6rZkH9TadRVjZLte3+tb17TjPKXCeuALP8nMN9XxNw+FbJNE 3zqbdddix3gfBqYlIqamhPD+FDleGVHg3ZWHYGjasygOUGTU1luFwHb7W2tw5iSr pocO8hFrrcKhA0S00GIoE6jb1rFxOK4ce4di57spTDUkipa2cbxyO+tfytqtdUQR xibGgByo3g7vFXaVZN9LHjxKf0VbLuONcEGEYxnzHDGs41YG72qus9BzPOGqYo8U adGh/djgfJY0PgTqjfsc1woEdTe8WPHz8rnFhOjRFdNgIGKBeyjYYWtUTc/Y5C57 xKHLSGsbJliU412C/tTj =AuFO -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
Re: [sword-devel] Sword 1.6.2 NOW!
Jaak Ristioja risti...@gmail.com writes: Why not branch? Because branching is a whole new world of pain, for something as straightforward as a workaround patch for a curl library bug. It's a one-line patch, for pity's sake. Since there has probably been no announcement from Sword that distros should patch, Um... Procession from false assumption. Anyone who's involved enough to be doing distribution of Sword software ought to be involved enough to be seeing discussion about such things as the curl bug and its patch here. When the bug was encountered, there was rather a lot of activity about it. Anyone who didn't see it...just wasn't watching. If I remember correctly, an OpenSUSE user was the last to report the bug to BibleTime, so maybe OpenSUSE still has it unpatched. No. Brian Dumont bdum...@ameritech.net is on top of that, and has informed me in the past that appropriate updates were available as of Aug 05. Whether updated builds get to the field properly is a whole different question -- e.g. we have the annoying nightmare that a Xiphos display workaround release for an xulrunner bug, fixed in May, hasn't gotten back to Ubuntu repositories, though it's available elsewhere just fine (via CrossWire's Ubuntu PPA for Sword builds). ___ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
Re: [sword-devel] Sword 1.6.2 NOW!
Hi Karl, branching is not a pain for this kind of purpose. Just branch off the repository state of 1.5.1 (I guess there is a tag available), apply the one-liner, and release a 1.5.1.1. A bugfix release. That should have been the answer to the problems at hand, not a patch. mg Am 14.09.10 11:58, schrieb Karl Kleinpaste: Jaak Ristioja risti...@gmail.com writes: Why not branch? Because branching is a whole new world of pain, for something as straightforward as a workaround patch for a curl library bug. It's a one-line patch, for pity's sake. Since there has probably been no announcement from Sword that distros should patch, Um... Procession from false assumption. Anyone who's involved enough to be doing distribution of Sword software ought to be involved enough to be seeing discussion about such things as the curl bug and its patch here. When the bug was encountered, there was rather a lot of activity about it. Anyone who didn't see it...just wasn't watching. If I remember correctly, an OpenSUSE user was the last to report the bug to BibleTime, so maybe OpenSUSE still has it unpatched. No. Brian Dumont bdum...@ameritech.net is on top of that, and has informed me in the past that appropriate updates were available as of Aug 05. Whether updated builds get to the field properly is a whole different question -- e.g. we have the annoying nightmare that a Xiphos display workaround release for an xulrunner bug, fixed in May, hasn't gotten back to Ubuntu repositories, though it's available elsewhere just fine (via CrossWire's Ubuntu PPA for Sword builds). ___ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page ___ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
Re: [sword-devel] Sword 1.6.2 NOW!
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:58, Karl Kleinpaste k...@kleinpaste.org wrote: Since there has probably been no announcement from Sword that distros should patch, Um... Procession from false assumption. Anyone who's involved enough to be doing distribution of Sword software ought to be involved enough to be seeing discussion about such things as the curl bug and its patch here. As a developer at PLD-Linux I long ago applied to patch in our package repository: http://cvs.pld-linux.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/packages/sword/sword.spec?rev=HEAD However I would like to weigh in to this discussion to say that any known bug that has to be patched in every major distribution before release ought to be enough to warrant a point release in the upstream project. There is no excuse for making every individual maintainer go to the trouble of figuring out what is wrong with a broken package and patching it. Caleb ___ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
Re: [sword-devel] Sword 1.6.2 NOW!
Am Mon, 13 Sep 2010 23:07:32 +0100 schrieb Troy A. Griffitts scr...@crosswire.org: We plan to release soon, but didn't know there was an urgent need. There are things unreleasable in head right now which need to be removed if we release 1.6.2 sooner rather than later. I was under the impression all distros already had our patch in their distribution. What distros release 1.6.1 unpatched? Foresight Linux did until 2 minutes ago, because we still ship curl 7.19.x and didn't see that issue yet. I didn't even know that it exists until this thread popped up. Troy Mark ___ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
Re: [sword-devel] Sword 1.6.2 NOW!
Am 14.09.2010 um 11:19 schrieb Martin Gruner: Hi Karl, branching is not a pain for this kind of purpose. Just branch off the repository state of 1.5.1 (I guess there is a tag available), apply the one-liner, and release a 1.5.1.1. A bugfix release. That should have been the answer to the problems at hand, not a patch. Right. Implement new features in trunk. Apply bug fixes to trunk and to a 1.6.1 branch or tag as well. No worries then about being forced to release untested new features for a bug fix release. Manfred Am 14.09.10 11:58, schrieb Karl Kleinpaste: Jaak Ristioja risti...@gmail.com writes: Why not branch? Because branching is a whole new world of pain, for something as straightforward as a workaround patch for a curl library bug. It's a one-line patch, for pity's sake. Since there has probably been no announcement from Sword that distros should patch, Um... Procession from false assumption. Anyone who's involved enough to be doing distribution of Sword software ought to be involved enough to be seeing discussion about such things as the curl bug and its patch here. When the bug was encountered, there was rather a lot of activity about it. Anyone who didn't see it...just wasn't watching. If I remember correctly, an OpenSUSE user was the last to report the bug to BibleTime, so maybe OpenSUSE still has it unpatched. No. Brian Dumont bdum...@ameritech.net is on top of that, and has informed me in the past that appropriate updates were available as of Aug 05. Whether updated builds get to the field properly is a whole different question -- e.g. we have the annoying nightmare that a Xiphos display workaround release for an xulrunner bug, fixed in May, hasn't gotten back to Ubuntu repositories, though it's available elsewhere just fine (via CrossWire's Ubuntu PPA for Sword builds). ___ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page ___ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page ___ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
Re: [sword-devel] Sword 1.6.2 NOW!
Understood going forward. There were a few factors which made this a slightly non-standard situation. First, this wasn't exactly a bug fix. It was a workaround for a bug in a version of libcurl. I was hoping libcurl would be patched. And no, I personally didn't report the issue to the curl team, which I should have. Secondly, one of our frontend projects submitted a small update which changed something another of our frontends depended on. The second project had updated their code to still work with the new change, but they hadn't released yet. If they had released then everyone would be happy with us releasing SVN as is. As it stands right now 1 of the 2 projects will need to patch SVN for their frontend to work. So delaying was a hopeful but unfruitful exercise. It was a choice we made to with the best information we had at the time. All this to say, sometime the situation is a little more complicated than shear negligence, so please be kind when asking for a release. We're planning to release 1.6.2 probably next week so I hope this is quick enough. Troy On 9/14/2010 11:46 AM, Manfred Bergmann wrote: Am 14.09.2010 um 11:19 schrieb Martin Gruner: Hi Karl, branching is not a pain for this kind of purpose. Just branch off the repository state of 1.5.1 (I guess there is a tag available), apply the one-liner, and release a 1.5.1.1. A bugfix release. That should have been the answer to the problems at hand, not a patch. Right. Implement new features in trunk. Apply bug fixes to trunk and to a 1.6.1 branch or tag as well. No worries then about being forced to release untested new features for a bug fix release. Manfred Am 14.09.10 11:58, schrieb Karl Kleinpaste: Jaak Ristiojaristi...@gmail.com writes: Why not branch? Because branching is a whole new world of pain, for something as straightforward as a workaround patch for a curl library bug. It's a one-line patch, for pity's sake. Since there has probably been no announcement from Sword that distros should patch, Um... Procession from false assumption. Anyone who's involved enough to be doing distribution of Sword software ought to be involved enough to be seeing discussion about such things as the curl bug and its patch here. When the bug was encountered, there was rather a lot of activity about it. Anyone who didn't see it...just wasn't watching. If I remember correctly, an OpenSUSE user was the last to report the bug to BibleTime, so maybe OpenSUSE still has it unpatched. No. Brian Dumontbdum...@ameritech.net is on top of that, and has informed me in the past that appropriate updates were available as of Aug 05. Whether updated builds get to the field properly is a whole different question -- e.g. we have the annoying nightmare that a Xiphos display workaround release for an xulrunner bug, fixed in May, hasn't gotten back to Ubuntu repositories, though it's available elsewhere just fine (via CrossWire's Ubuntu PPA for Sword builds). ___ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page ___ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page ___ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page ___ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
Re: [sword-devel] Sword 1.6.2 NOW!
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:43 PM, Troy A. Griffitts scr...@crosswire.org wrote: Understood going forward. There were a few factors which made this a slightly non-standard situation. First, this wasn't exactly a bug fix. It was a workaround for a bug in a version of libcurl. I was hoping libcurl would be patched. And no, I personally didn't report the issue to the curl team, which I should have. Secondly, one of our frontend projects submitted a small update which changed something another of our frontends depended on. The second project had updated their code to still work with the new change, but they hadn't released yet. If they had released then everyone would be happy with us releasing SVN as is. As it stands right now 1 of the 2 projects will need to patch SVN for their frontend to work. So delaying was a hopeful but unfruitful exercise. It was a choice we made to with the best information we had at the time. Not knowing the nature of the changes, etc, I don't mean to provide this as a comment on that, but I'd just like to bring back up this email: http://www.crosswire.org/pipermail/sword-devel/2009-June/032108.html and see if that's still the plan? If you're actually changing how things are working inside (in the sense of enhancing for new modules and content like the NASB and not just for fixing bugs), then maybe it is time to branch and allow for bug fixing/feature branches to develop separately until 1.7 is made? --Greg ___ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
Re: [sword-devel] Sword 1.6.2 NOW!
I know for sure that Fedora (a few F11+ i think) Debian (squeeze+) and Ubuntu (well Karmic+ if you consider PPA or Lucid+ from main archive) are all patched. This is way to small for a bugfix release (I'd rather see more personally). This issue was not present a the time sword 1.6.1 was released, curl was the culprit. Just this bugfix is not worth a branch, a release, nothing. It was widely discussed on this mailing list, the patch is readily available from svn, most distributors have applyed it, and it doesn't affect statickly linked builds which are used (as far as I know) on Windows, Mac, Android, iOS (all of these together probably outweigh desktop distribution based Linux). This particular fix has been deployed in one of the OBS project for OpenSUSE users. I cannot comment about any source based distros as I don't follow their development. ___ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
Re: [sword-devel] Sword 1.6.2 NOW!
Thanks for the email link Greg. Yeah, the submitted changes in question from project A were filter updates, and we do specifically state in that email that filter updates are allowed in a stable branch. It was kindof an odd situation. The updates merely added css classes to a few of the html tags which are outputted from the filters, none of the projects involved thought adding css classes would break anyone. One of the things in head currently which isn't mentioned in that email is binding improvements and also your additional cmake make system. I'm not sure how I feel about binding improvements being included in a stable branch, but I don't see an issue including an additional make system. Any thoughts? Troy On 9/14/2010 6:49 PM, Greg Hellings wrote: On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:43 PM, Troy A. Griffitts scr...@crosswire.org wrote: Understood going forward. There were a few factors which made this a slightly non-standard situation. First, this wasn't exactly a bug fix. It was a workaround for a bug in a version of libcurl. I was hoping libcurl would be patched. And no, I personally didn't report the issue to the curl team, which I should have. Secondly, one of our frontend projects submitted a small update which changed something another of our frontends depended on. The second project had updated their code to still work with the new change, but they hadn't released yet. If they had released then everyone would be happy with us releasing SVN as is. As it stands right now 1 of the 2 projects will need to patch SVN for their frontend to work. So delaying was a hopeful but unfruitful exercise. It was a choice we made to with the best information we had at the time. Not knowing the nature of the changes, etc, I don't mean to provide this as a comment on that, but I'd just like to bring back up this email: http://www.crosswire.org/pipermail/sword-devel/2009-June/032108.html and see if that's still the plan? If you're actually changing how things are working inside (in the sense of enhancing for new modules and content like the NASB and not just for fixing bugs), then maybe it is time to branch and allow for bug fixing/feature branches to develop separately until 1.7 is made? --Greg ___ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page ___ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
Re: [sword-devel] Sword 1.6.2 NOW!
On 14 September 2010 19:46, Troy A. Griffitts scr...@crosswire.org wrote: Thanks for the email link Greg. Yeah, the submitted changes in question from project A were filter updates, and we do specifically state in that email that filter updates are allowed in a stable branch. It was kindof an odd situation. The updates merely added css classes to a few of the html tags which are outputted from the filters, none of the projects involved thought adding css classes would break anyone. One of the things in head currently which isn't mentioned in that email is binding improvements and also your additional cmake make system. I'm not sure how I feel about binding improvements being included in a stable branch, but I don't see an issue including an additional make system. Any thoughts? cmake stuff is not finished yet =/ there are still quite a bit of stuff that needs to be tested. Xiphos is not on a verge of a new release yet. /me changing hats Debian Ubuntu do not particularly see any urgency in a sword release and rather wait for cmake to stabilise (at least I want CPack which can create tarballs) Troy On 9/14/2010 6:49 PM, Greg Hellings wrote: On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:43 PM, Troy A. Griffitts scr...@crosswire.org wrote: Understood going forward. There were a few factors which made this a slightly non-standard situation. First, this wasn't exactly a bug fix. It was a workaround for a bug in a version of libcurl. I was hoping libcurl would be patched. And no, I personally didn't report the issue to the curl team, which I should have. Secondly, one of our frontend projects submitted a small update which changed something another of our frontends depended on. The second project had updated their code to still work with the new change, but they hadn't released yet. If they had released then everyone would be happy with us releasing SVN as is. As it stands right now 1 of the 2 projects will need to patch SVN for their frontend to work. So delaying was a hopeful but unfruitful exercise. It was a choice we made to with the best information we had at the time. Not knowing the nature of the changes, etc, I don't mean to provide this as a comment on that, but I'd just like to bring back up this email: http://www.crosswire.org/pipermail/sword-devel/2009-June/032108.html and see if that's still the plan? If you're actually changing how things are working inside (in the sense of enhancing for new modules and content like the NASB and not just for fixing bugs), then maybe it is time to branch and allow for bug fixing/feature branches to develop separately until 1.7 is made? --Greg ___ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page ___ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page ___ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
Re: [sword-devel] Sword 1.6.2 NOW!
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 1:46 PM, Troy A. Griffitts scr...@crosswire.org wrote: Thanks for the email link Greg. Yeah, the submitted changes in question from project A were filter updates, and we do specifically state in that email that filter updates are allowed in a stable branch. It was kindof an odd situation. The updates merely added css classes to a few of the html tags which are outputted from the filters, none of the projects involved thought adding css classes would break anyone. Huh, I can understand why! (btw - is it anything that broke Bibletime? I haven't heard of these breakages, so I would guess not) One of the things in head currently which isn't mentioned in that email is binding improvements and also your additional cmake make system. I'm not sure how I feel about binding improvements being included in a stable branch, but I don't see an issue including an additional make system. Any thoughts? IMO, it would be the other way. If people see a CMake system they will probably think it's exactly like the autotools, which is not easy to guarantee. I would think CMake should be held off for a feature update release and the bindings fixes should be included. My alterations in the bindings directory aren't adding new functionality - it's fixes for functionality which was there but long broken. I would hesitate to include those changes though, until we've heard from the BPBible team. I've asked a few times since I made the changes and haven't seen any comments from them on here. Either they don't use SVN HEAD in their development, or they haven't noticed any breakage. --Greg Troy On 9/14/2010 6:49 PM, Greg Hellings wrote: On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:43 PM, Troy A. Griffitts scr...@crosswire.org wrote: Understood going forward. There were a few factors which made this a slightly non-standard situation. First, this wasn't exactly a bug fix. It was a workaround for a bug in a version of libcurl. I was hoping libcurl would be patched. And no, I personally didn't report the issue to the curl team, which I should have. Secondly, one of our frontend projects submitted a small update which changed something another of our frontends depended on. The second project had updated their code to still work with the new change, but they hadn't released yet. If they had released then everyone would be happy with us releasing SVN as is. As it stands right now 1 of the 2 projects will need to patch SVN for their frontend to work. So delaying was a hopeful but unfruitful exercise. It was a choice we made to with the best information we had at the time. Not knowing the nature of the changes, etc, I don't mean to provide this as a comment on that, but I'd just like to bring back up this email: http://www.crosswire.org/pipermail/sword-devel/2009-June/032108.html and see if that's still the plan? If you're actually changing how things are working inside (in the sense of enhancing for new modules and content like the NASB and not just for fixing bugs), then maybe it is time to branch and allow for bug fixing/feature branches to develop separately until 1.7 is made? --Greg ___ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page ___ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page ___ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
Re: [sword-devel] Sword 1.6.2 NOW!
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Greg Hellings greg.helli...@gmail.comwrote: IMO, it would be the other way. If people see a CMake system they will probably think it's exactly like the autotools, which is not easy to guarantee. I would think CMake should be held off for a feature update release and the bindings fixes should be included. My alterations in the bindings directory aren't adding new functionality - it's fixes for functionality which was there but long broken. I would hesitate to include those changes though, until we've heard from the BPBible team. I've asked a few times since I made the changes and haven't seen any comments from them on here. Either they don't use SVN HEAD in their development, or they haven't noticed any breakage. --Greg I did try building sword with cmake on OS X and it seemed to work, as did the bindings. But I didn't ever get round to running with it. I'm doing that now, and it appears that there are problems with it with some of the VerseKey added methods like bookName (i.e. vk = Sword.VerseKey() vk.bookName(2, 2) b is null for 4536913?!? ) Could this be because the python version is linking against a libsword 1.6.1 dylib (which was already there from a previous compilation without cmake) and there have been changes in the .h files which it was including when building the swig which break things (i.e. no ABI compatibility with 1.6.1)? That's all I can think of. I haven't got any time to look at it at the moment really. Currently trying to use the cmake checked into sword's trunk gives this error: [ 3%] Building CXX object CMakeFiles/buildtest.dir/buildtest.cpp.o Linking CXX executable buildtest [ 3%] Built target buildtest make[2]: *** No rule to make target `../sword', needed by `CMakeFiles/pythonswig'. Stop. make[1]: *** [CMakeFiles/pythonswig.dir/all] Error 2 make: *** [all] Error 2 God Bless, Ben --- Multitudes, multitudes, in the valley of decision! For the day of the LORD is near in the valley of decision. Giôên 3:14 (ESV) ___ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
[sword-devel] Sword 1.6.2 NOW!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello! Please release a bugfix version of Sword ASAP! The current version 1.6.1 crashes with all recent versions of curl, while curl versions older than 7.20.0 are being removed from distributions. So this is very urgent. For the bug, see: http://www.crosswire.org/bugs/browse/API-128 Sword crashes mean crashes for all Sword applications using this functionality. This bug also blocks development work of applications dependent on Sword. We have been getting a lot of bug reports for BibleTime regarding this issue and we are very frustrated. Jaak Ristioja The BibleTime Team -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux) iQgcBAEBAgAGBQJMjpLuAAoJEFqwhAoGc/hv43lAAKj3bXRN9CQYcWtl0sOqgfXg uSkhQVfBhFETMVa19PdU/WEGhpW94P41s1QslayPhSXWGF/SKITOqtLfvF2FFKiR DdRWZOhAd+rERBGAyIkN86DvvpSI80E7IGQv2vXMrc6Uz9MBgZ0u4EIbkxlThG2i fhvHPU64GVY0dHZYQOl+hciPXGPsnm+T06ONC4bBzY08RnNpu0p/BRS2ptn1gvU4 mEbt6te1y7fl88gZt0yIsU2XEgmVWe3715bFtlIHC5tq4fmmuJ3q46tqQ+yOkF87 qTOHZwkfPPa0/HqVt/TdfVTJ9Ze7XzwjQVXgYYwiCAPkq01UOO0ROXb0UIqzl98O 9Ft8FESpbtPpWJ9Y6V07iK4HZwswN3Dm6AbSykJT7C/BBB+OgBA9BMKlheFUqmA5 snb1jQ6nAYKJU/FljNZLObgznzYVDuN3rzY3H5acT4yACVxNl7X8jE+800TBuKAU GczEKdWIRcVUROFKFr8f5AHR4pj1Oc4x4xq28jMZJCWKEhxtCDY1y0M9TVAl00kY 6DKeoXllnxt6xUcLUve10k+06dJhUkO0Lp9u7u/jrJlIvXU2k9rbSsA0zk25bObn ON9CMfGjNEqeED1yvxsb0juVZppkys2YI833vuQ5btwCuCatyTF4+H0F5AByKFMA Eb1hy/ieh/oqWT0KuiUoH7jWMfvRU1ET/QOUoPphYkBo1E+7i6GkPjjGnXI3ea83 yJ0B7QR48BPkgajpPeBEkU3SRX5IEwdYBhJTH8vRD6hohF6t73Fcd5/GyMKuQvBJ WzUMte4AHfA39S73i58KWQ7v3xbNODafmdL8lFENuP1VP2rSknXK8BKODCGbxL3u zZf9rybM7Cl1ZHGpWV1/fhErOlZzJb/koAGavqlgcRO9X7oWQXb40RLk1ka22YwH 54GqF51y4DeyXXW3vCSd7tP6Qyu5xksykhz8J9YZLnl2/BuGJgQl2SV2duUuQr9x TmU4wKcblohahkvRrJ512ZvYJOJzhOligoPjXkvNp4BKmw82Z9Yq1mpG2JFrlFRx ssAJS5Xmh7P/r5jIKFH3YRK36y62NoPn4PXVnJz1kFV3AEx9VQR3pTzrH89npjef 5CqM58eMEDnHGUB/yd3f9wociQyTn81iMQQOkJ9uIlVQlraal7fU9rJkEpVQAfQo iBC4owrecEOlwYwzj5kpZUAM1lBYPn6MRQYFjnnWX5U4+/R+190Lw+dT/RbxISUF 0AXwOBuy2NzABbKitdsqIzMq83vzakk3/zqTBTOfn2/4Ztr8zQTRYJrC/FWF4WxY 7TPp3Cj9vN5idNBXnB9g0B0T3BCWqmtkOJn5BmdVvou7ila09BOFgUCSgGit0yBw W3rbdw+dXlY3+cS32qQUBXBnkG1J8EoWjhHmmz9UhGLG1Omsdv+UXjBA7Fux/OYR P2aiOFt8S7PlMZsXsfpep8gE0dshAr5tsyqtXafWkLz+ieONZq1QubCWHX8HDYli BPWy2z78eziOoPspmOJfKMJhE+QKQBJj1CTaLOTgq70F3TW15S3G/lpJEUvhQsRT BsnbK/x5pbcXCvsZpteyjUcRpfPJ6UGC5nmk1OQezoKXx5yAAiy14+gZWV9AI5gr ZcbefMZ2/5Xilbeh7Y3EOKXXaDwMW5kPATzpj9HD7up/GUaM5Qb9OJiBjGbKJ6Ph yb1Lx2o2ffHu49m4qyeXK+CNz3dGfFnq8YDegRudELBmy7eVUK8a4964Q526K5Dh TYqnKLfDtxu0wDkbZey2SirzWhSN9GyET7ghWlEGqMmfY0jiU6k7//3B9X4MQNXq r/ygoFbJwLgxi0qe6ilp7Jat/bNBzTdbPfT/M27DISiiuIviDLfbAp5dU6b76BRM qKlHe7AqjBWDT4idbgA+7ZoklzX4SnQ3RZRYftqSowEpGcH221N9doBwtsIdtSyv RMGk0U8GoJ5K0x4Cd86/6LygbeEu6A6k8/EFWSpoEA7Rz2UgnVZoul6qlfq6v5tT e3TyTT+0f4jV4Ahdz7VJJSFA6gz4K6W723iC6N6/t6Lrc13ns2n/94XB/VG01iJF GNe4CZqq7/FmzsS7c6+BBb/s/DJ/2ZUcWgIrGdDVNLM9l8F/1o3ROU0hEJyci6iW 4y/dN+JMjCySTYrQGyQ9sRpZy+KjOpH4mWvfxGWVSlonau60rT2KWMPloB8W3mNo NyGAacyCKQ4Sz86HUGBJs6zvpJDS04q+WopFtPoNmE6wKQVtRSDtuqav3OX7eho+ QOoT6BSCEdA2XrPzqq+6JoElsKsoi/iN08HcnVej4H7B30Z2RHyBrAgOFkS2WnOI NDPdQs99E3AoD/XUCtmJV6A6g4sQN8Jq+LEgWbvCi5HesVINbubTsE/dRJdc5REc ta5xejyXsPD7mAN6jmYR5jJWvccfMVUQbdLtUFQLcmmmT5b4/Vxi4Bmdh833Deu0 n/3NvFjv6Y+Kz6KQDd/hXS7YvbJy5mU1GfCB2/VtAAA+49AtnfMVH2N6lqEeLqVj FnGIJxRcuNPlonxAKbxeCy4HrtWivuyNX5q3q6wUenfbpqqV9Jf6LHuN8mNgygRS U8wN4LNpfwcNAei3LDQBxx93GLzsc44t/bSlziX3zmz4f3y81V2PEWWho4fZ/WVG bivzbC+6xiMG+XGohrdSQ7/bOZwfZrHIVLP7ras3SpYrCS9wQ0YfUU+zs1peB3x4 fu0LVrmwcmXoaxhrhKcw =PE1K -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
Re: [sword-devel] Sword 1.6.2 NOW!
We plan to release soon, but didn't know there was an urgent need. There are things unreleasable in head right now which need to be removed if we release 1.6.2 sooner rather than later. I was under the impression all distros already had our patch in their distribution. What distros release 1.6.1 unpatched? Troy On 09/13/2010 10:09 PM, Jaak Ristioja wrote: Hello! Please release a bugfix version of Sword ASAP! The current version 1.6.1 crashes with all recent versions of curl, while curl versions older than 7.20.0 are being removed from distributions. So this is very urgent. For the bug, see: http://www.crosswire.org/bugs/browse/API-128 Sword crashes mean crashes for all Sword applications using this functionality. This bug also blocks development work of applications dependent on Sword. We have been getting a lot of bug reports for BibleTime regarding this issue and we are very frustrated. Jaak Ristioja The BibleTime Team ___ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page ___ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
