Greg,
On Arch Linux we are still building 4.1.0 using the waf build system, but
on our VCS package that builds from git head the cmake build system is
working perfectly as is. From the git clone directory, our cmake
incantation looks like this:
cmake -S . -B build \
-DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release \
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 part should
be 100% working now, or my job on that PR isn't done. You should be
able
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 simply tag, then build. There should be virtually nothing to do.
If you are deleting the tag, DO IT NOW. 5 hours ago. This is not
something that is easy to recover from and anybody that has pulled the
repo will manually need to delete their own tags, git does not do it
automatically. Integrity thing.
Personally I would say ignore it, maybe manually throw up
>> 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
>> used the link to see the results, and have a packages.zip (174M) containing
>> 2 Windows *.exe, 1 Fedora 31 rpm, a generic tarball (funny name,
from the
automatic git archive of the tag any more, although a work around
would be to clone the repo at the tag).
On Sat, May 2, 2020 at 11:50 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
On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 4:08 PM Karl Kleinpaste wrote:
> I'm mostly a Fedora guy and deal with Ubuntu only when necessary. If you're
> motivated, have at it.
I'm mostly an Arch guy and avoid Ubuntu like the plague — but even
lepers need access to the Bible so I'll give it a go.
somebody currently on this list?
On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 4:52 PM Caleb Maclennan wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 4:08 PM Karl Kleinpaste wrote:
> > I'm mostly a Fedora guy and deal with Ubuntu only when necessary. If
> > you're motivated, have at it.
>
> I'm mostly an Arch g
> What do you need for support of a PPA?
Having fairly recently setup a PPA for SILE
(https://launchpad.net/~sile-typesetter/+archive/ubuntu/sile) off the
top of my head setting it up will go something like this:
* A Launchpad account (better yet, a team with a couple of authorized people)
* Add
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
>> i
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 to have git history (i.e. you can use a clone of the
repository
use the existing "xiphos-devel" or
"pkgcrosswire" team team space and add a new PPA (either "xiphos-devel/ppa"
or "pkgcrosswire/xiphos" and setup packaging there. No renames to existing
launchpad stuff, just a new new fresh PPA and leave the existing archaic
Crossw
A couple days ago I updated the Arch Linux AUR package build to 4.2.0 (now
4.2.1) and also posted pre-compiled packages to my user repository, see
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/xiphos. I'm also working on getting
Xiphos included in the default Arch [community] repository, but it looks
like
On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 5:31 PM Samuel Banya wrote:
> If there are any low level tickets that could be easily read and possibly
> looked at, let me know.
Sam,
I'm just a bystander and occasional contributor myself so this isn't
any kind of official word. but please allow me to offer a little
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 months ago unless my brain is having a hard
time with math at 2 am.
Maybe
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 the input Greg.
Can you clarify whether you would suggest stuffing new packages into the
existing
On Sat, May 9, 2020 at 12:45 AM Greg Hellings
wrote:
> I would stick with just updating the existing ones. It shouldn't be hard
> to drop in a new Sword, BibleTime, and Xiphos (I assume those are the three
> packages in the PPA?)
>
It's just a bit messier than that. There is a long since
nchpad stuff, just a new new fresh PPA and leave the existing archaic
> Crosswire PPAs to be cleaned up later.
>
> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 1:50 PM Caleb Maclennan wrote:
>
>> A couple days ago I updated the Arch Linux AUR package build to 4.2.0
>> (now 4.2.1) and also posted
e package *xiphos* (because of conflicts in
> dependencies).
>
> --yvand
>
> Le 10/07/2017 à 11:40, Caleb Maclennan a écrit :
>
> Yvand are you running the xiphos, xiphos-git, or xiphos-gtk3 package from
> the AUR? Have you tried one of the other packages?
>
>
nally created GoBible and GoBibleCreator and we inherited it.
>
> Sent from my mobile. Please forgive shortness, typos and weird
> autocorrects.
>
>
> Original Message
> Subject: Re: [xiphos-devel] 4.2.0 tagged and pushed
> From: Caleb Maclennan
> To: Xiphos
20 matches
Mail list logo
