Re: [xiphos-devel] Note

with the builds themselves. --Greg On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 6:43 AM, Karl Kleinpaste <k...@kleinpaste.org> wrote: > On 09/19/2016 05:39 PM, Greg Hellings wrote: > > The recommended solution is to move to the webkit2 API > > Yes, there was discussion of this in #xiphos a w

Re: [xiphos-devel] download counts

Doesn't look like they have a way on their UI to do it, but you can use this information for the purpose: https://help.github.com/articles/getting-the-download-count-for-your-releases/ Processing this for the latest release can be done as follows: curl -X GET

Re: [xiphos-devel] download counts

If you're not interested in breaking out each element, and only want a total download count, you can use this filter, instead: curl -X GET https://api.github.com/repos/crosswire/xiphos/releases | jq '[.[0].assets[] | .download_count] | add' --Greg On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Greg Hellings

Re: [xiphos-devel] need an opinion on release

As I doubt anyone is actually building for Windows besides you, I would just make a Windows build. If it crops up in any other environments, then you can cut the new full release. On Aug 20, 2017 1:22 PM, "Karl Kleinpaste" wrote: > I need an opinion. > > I have found the

Re: [xiphos-devel] new release by end of month

You can use "bisect" from the known good to the known bad commit to find the exact change. On Sep 5, 2017 15:36, "Peter von Kaehne" <ref...@gmx.net> wrote: > On Tue, 2017-09-05 at 15:41 -0400, Karl Kleinpaste wrote: > > On 09/05/2017 03:23 PM, Greg Helli

Re: [xiphos-devel] new release by end of month

Looks like there's something wonky with your SWORD version, and not with Xiphos. A header file might be missing a #ifdef guard somewhere or the like. --Greg On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Peter von Kaehne wrote: > On Tue, 2017-09-05 at 09:33 -0400, Karl Kleinpaste wrote: > > >

Re: [xiphos-devel] Build failures

Rebuild sword. I don't think Xiphos will link ICU directly, but if Sword has issues they'll appear while linking. --Greg On Sat, Jun 2, 2018, 16:03 Peter von Kaehne wrote: > Hi, I am trying to build Xiphos and fail dt my system having ICU 60. > but the linker seems to expect ICU57. > > Is

Re: [xiphos-devel] gtk_widget_hide() isn't hiding

And why aren't you just deleting it? --Greg On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 6:47 PM, Karl Kleinpaste wrote: > How is it possible for this to fail to eliminate the "detach" entry from > the main menu? > >widgets.attach_detach_item = UI_GET_ITEM(gxml, >

Re: [xiphos-devel] back from the dead

NASB patch CMake incantation is: mkdir build && cd build export CFLAGS=-fPIC export CXXFLAGS=-fPIC cmake -DGTKHTML:BOOL=ON -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=RelWithDebInfo .. make && sudo make install --Greg On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 10:35 PM Karl Kleinpaste wrote: > On 4/15/20 11:18 PM, Greg H

Re: [xiphos-devel] back from the dead

Welcome back, Mr Kleinpaste. We missed you.  On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 9:01 PM Karl Kleinpaste wrote: > At least, I think I'm back. > > I've been out of commission for doing Xiphos things for way too long. I'm > back now, I think. I've just gone through ~150 emails from the github issue >

Re: [xiphos-devel] back from the dead

, 2020 at 10:12 PM Greg Hellings wrote: > Welcome back, Mr Kleinpaste. > > We missed you.  > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 9:01 PM Karl Kleinpaste > wrote: > >> At least, I think I'm back. >> >> I've been out of commission for doing Xiphos things for way too lo

Re: [xiphos-devel] that blasted editor

If formatting is really our concern, maybe we abandon HTML editing altogether? Perhaps a MarkDown compatible editor that will wriggle back and forth to the HTML displays in a text? It gives the full power of most formatting choices people would want while not limiting the full power of HTML (you

Re: [xiphos-devel] that blasted editor

On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 2:40 AM Dominique Corbex wrote: > On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 18:32:31 -0500 > Greg Hellings wrote: > > > If formatting is really our concern, maybe we abandon HTML editing > > altogether? Perhaps a MarkDown compatible editor that will wriggle back > a

[xiphos-devel] GConf2, mingw-biblesync package news/questions

I'm getting caught up on messages and tasks over the weekend related to Fedora packages and two quick things: 1) I got a mingw-biblesync package approved for Fedora, including the f30 branch. Builds are happening now, and that will appear in the updates-testing and eventually updates repo in

Re: [xiphos-devel] GConf2, mingw-biblesync package news/questions

On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 12:33 PM Karl Kleinpaste wrote: > On 4/27/20 11:54 AM, Greg Hellings wrote: > > Does our display toolkit still rely on GConf2? > > https://github.com/crosswire/xiphos/issues/918 > closed by you. :-) > Ah, auto-closed when I merged that branch. I t

Re: [xiphos-devel] Windows build: successful

On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 3:13 PM Karl Kleinpaste wrote: > I wanted to post something outside the previous thread on building for > Windows, in case folks had started ignoring that one. > > Boy, ya mention a problem in need of attention, ya get some folks > motivated, and stuff just happens. > >

Re: [xiphos-devel] getting a new release out

On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 3:50 PM Karl Kleinpaste wrote: > It's been over 2 years since 4.1.0. Obviously, that's way too long. This > is my fault, of course. > > In this time, we've gotten a new build system, and there's been a slew of > bug fixes. Nothing new and huge, architecturally speaking,

Re: [xiphos-devel] windows build

Toolbox comes from the world where people keep trying to push containers for everything, including the desktop. However, for automated build release, testing, etc we'll still want to support Docker, since toolbox isn't in the Ubuntu repositories. Fortunately toolbox, which is built on podman, is

Re: [xiphos-devel] getting a new release out

On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 5:43 PM Karl Kleinpaste wrote: > On 4/25/20 4:55 PM, Greg Hellings wrote: > > If you can mutter the proper svn command > > > I was thinking of downgrading xiphos/src/main/display.cc during build to > undo the fix I did. But if you want to incorporate

Re: [xiphos-devel] getting a new release out

On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 2:33 AM Caleb Maclennan wrote: > On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 11:50 PM Karl Kleinpaste > wrote: > > - I need to understand how the version stamp thing happens, now that > Caleb's source_version.txt is in play. We simply tag just prior to doing > github release? > > Yes, just

Re: [xiphos-devel] getting a new release out

On Sun, Apr 26, 2020, 02:55 Caleb Maclennan wrote: > On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 10:39 AM Greg Hellings > wrote: > > We aren't quite there, yet. > > Sure we are. But I think we might be talking about different things. > My comments were all about local tagging and builds. That

Re: [xiphos-devel] windows build

Maybe try skipping toolbox and going straight to Podman to test if it can do things directly? podman run -i -t fedora-toolbox:30 /bin/bash --Greg On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 12:01 PM Karl Kleinpaste wrote: > On 4/24/20 11:59 AM, Dominique Corbex wrote: > > Have you disabled SELinux enabled or

Re: [xiphos-devel] windows build

available out of the box, but either don't offer toolbox or it's going to be a royal pain to get it working on their infra. I'm happy to undertake this effort, and add it to the CI, if you don't mind. --Greg On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 12:26 PM Greg Hellings wrote: > Maybe try skipping toolbox and go

Re: [xiphos-devel] windows build

On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 10:01 PM Karl Kleinpaste wrote: > I went looking into the Windows build today. > > The situation is very ugly. Problem is that many needed, old packages are > no longer supported, no longer available at all. And in #963, Dom tells us > that functional gtk3 for Windows

Re: [xiphos-devel] windows build

Is it not just "toolbox create --image=fedora:30"? Or whatever the name is the toolbox image is? Regardless of that, we'd probably automate the builds on Github using bare Docker commands. --Greg On Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 02:01 Dominique Corbex wrote: > On Wed, 22 Apr 2020 23:00:38 -0400 > Karl

Re: [xiphos-devel] release this weekend?

I know of nothing to hinder us. 1) Yes, that PR is ready to go 2) I just added a second PR to move us to using the pre-built Fedora MinGW-Biblesync package Making a release, after the PR is in, from your local system is: # Only if you're not on the HEAD of master locally git co master git pull #

Re: [xiphos-devel] 4.2.0 tagged and pushed

I'm good with it. Typically things pushed publicly you're discouraged from modifying, but I see no issues in this case. --Greg On Sat, May 2, 2020 at 1:18 PM Karl Kleinpaste wrote: > On 5/2/20 2:16 PM, Greg Hellings wrote: > > Including that in my patch. > > I see that git su

Re: [xiphos-devel] 4.2.0 tagged and pushed

On Sat, May 2, 2020 at 9:55 AM Karl Kleinpaste wrote: > On 5/2/20 10:40 AM, Karl Kleinpaste wrote: > > What's where, now that tag/push is done? > > > OK, to follow up to myself, I got the auto-build results email, which > reports 6 successful builds and 1 failed deployment. From that email, I >

Re: [xiphos-devel] 4.2.0 tagged and pushed

On Sat, May 2, 2020 at 1:03 PM Karl Kleinpaste wrote: > Just noticed, we have a Windows build problem. I just installed the > win64.exe, result doesn't run, packaging problem. > > env WINEPREFIX="/home/karl/.wine" wine C:\\windows\\command\\start.exe > /Unix

Re: [xiphos-devel] windows build

I have the build working in Docker, currently adding CI to it in Github Actions. It will auto-build the artifacts (this will be step 1 of getting automated builds out the door using Github Actions so maintainers and release managers won't have to build the artifacts and upload them to Github

Re: [xiphos-devel] windows script can't find cmake?

Have you executed the podman build step, per the new docs? The install is all done during the build step and saved as an image so you don't have to go through that download and install of the deps on every build. For me it cuts the build time from about ten minutes to one minute, but without the

Re: [xiphos-devel] windows script can't find cmake?

On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 2:15 PM Karl Kleinpaste wrote: > On 5/17/20 12:08 PM, Greg Hellings wrote: > > Have you executed the podman build step, per the new docs? > > > $ grep -rl podman > win32/WindowsBuildNotes.txt > $ grep docker win32/WindowsBuildNotes.txt dock

Re: [xiphos-devel] windows script can't find cmake?

On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 10:39 PM Greg Hellings wrote: > > > On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 2:15 PM Karl Kleinpaste > wrote: > >> On 5/17/20 12:08 PM, Greg Hellings wrote: >> >> Have you executed the podman build step, per the new docs? >> >> >&g

Re: [xiphos-devel] 4.2.0 tagged and pushed

On Sat, May 2, 2020 at 3:50 PM Karl Kleinpaste wrote: > On 5/2/20 4:10 PM, Caleb Maclennan wrote: > > If you are deleting the tag, DO IT NOW. > > > At this point, we'll just let 4.2.0 go, and tag 4.2.1 for a real release > once Greg does his patch. > Just want to update on this: 1) I fell off

Re: [xiphos-devel] why produce tar files?

On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 1:23 AM Caleb Maclennan wrote: > Because the Git generated archive of the raw repository contents is not > the same contents as the generated source packages. Specifically the former > has no information about what version it is. The two ways to get this > information are

Re: [xiphos-devel] windows script can't find cmake?

On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 11:14 AM Greg Hellings wrote: > > > On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 4:24 AM Karl Kleinpaste > wrote: > >> On 5/17/20 11:39 PM, Greg Hellings wrote: >> >> $ grep docker win32/WindowsBuildNotes.txt >> docker run --rm -it -v $(pwd):/source

Re: [xiphos-devel] windows script can't find cmake?

Hellings wrote: > > > On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 11:14 AM Greg Hellings > wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 4:24 AM Karl Kleinpaste >> wrote: >> >>> On 5/17/20 11:39 PM, Greg Hellings wrote: >>> >>> $ grep docker win32/Windo

Re: [xiphos-devel] windows script can't find cmake?

On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 4:24 AM Karl Kleinpaste wrote: > On 5/17/20 11:39 PM, Greg Hellings wrote: > > $ grep docker win32/WindowsBuildNotes.txt > docker run --rm -it -v $(pwd):/source greg-hellings/xiphos > docker build -t xiphos win32 > docker run --rm -it -v $(p

Re: [xiphos-devel] 4.2.0 tagged and pushed

On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 6:08 AM Caleb Maclennan wrote: > And before anybody chimes in, yes I'm aware there are yet more namespaces > already floating around on launchpad. There is a "crosswire-misc" project, > a "~pkg-crosswire-devel" team, and half a dozen "xiphos-something" projects > users

Re: [xiphos-devel] 4.2.0 tagged and pushed

On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 6:20 PM Caleb Maclennan wrote: > On Sat, May 9, 2020 at 2:02 AM Karl Kleinpaste > wrote: > >> If any of it has modtimes longer than maybe 6 months ago, it's too old to >> be interesting or worthwhile. >> > > The range is 2009-2012. > > That's a wee bit longer than 6

Re: [xiphos-devel] 4.2.0 tagged and pushed

On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 4:33 PM Caleb Maclennan wrote: > On Sat, May 9, 2020 at 12:20 AM Greg Hellings > wrote: > >> Use pkgcrosswire, as ugly as that might be to us. It has history, I >> believe it's where packages have long been held. >> > > Thanks for th

Re: [xiphos-devel] "make clean" removes po/*.po

Interesting - CMake thinks that this is a generated file. If it is generated then "make clean" should properly clean it out. But it's also trying to open "ar.po" in order to clean "ar.po". Which doesn't make much sense. I don't know how .po files work. Are they generated? --Greg On Fri, Sep 11,

[xiphos-devel] 1.9.0RC3 Windows builds

So we're back on the upgrade train for Sword this time. But we can't make official Fedora 30 builds because the window for that closed about a year ago. So I'm trying to update our build Dockerfile to compile Sword 1.9.0 from source with the older libraries. But the old version of gcc there gives

Re: [xiphos-devel] 1.9.0RC3 Windows builds

I thought it was because of gtkHTML for the editor? --Greg On Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 08:14 Karl Kleinpaste wrote: > On 10/12/20 12:39 AM, Greg Hellings wrote: > > This leaves us a "do we patch Sword" somehow, or do we finally bite the > bullet and get off GTK2/Fedora 30? >

Re: [xiphos-devel] failed builds after vietnamese translation added

OK so the Ubuntu one should be easy. It applies a few patches to SWORD. Those can be dropped and we should upgrade to SWORD 1.9 anyway. The Arch build? Sounds like an upstream bug or change. I thought we're installing all those files from the AUR, and it looks like it's not installing the