On Mon, 9 Dec 2013 20:23:39 -0500 Michael Blumenkrantz <michael.blumenkra...@gmail.com> said:
> On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 09:34:57 +0900 > Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) <ras...@rasterman.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, 9 Dec 2013 19:02:50 -0500 Michael Blumenkrantz > > <michael.blumenkra...@gmail.com> said: > > > > > On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 08:51:50 +0900 > > > Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) <ras...@rasterman.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, 9 Dec 2013 14:37:58 +0100 Stefan Schmidt > > > > <ste...@datenfreihafen.org> said: > > > > > > > > > Hello. > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 2013-12-09 at 14:28, Stefan Schmidt wrote: > > > > > > Hello. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 2013-12-09 at 07:11, Jeff Hoogland wrote: > > > > > > > I'm not sure this is the case - just like Simon alpha4 builds fine > > > > > > > here. > > > > > > > > > > > > Really strange. I reviewd the commits that gone into rc1 and efl > > > > > > 1.8.2 but I can't see anything that broke this. Also its building > > > > > > fine for me and on jenkins. > > > > > > > > > > > > > At any rate I guess I'll try just disabling physics then. > > > > > > > > > > > > Please do. The physics module was not really maintained and Mike > > > > > > just removed it so it will be gone in the next rc and the final > > > > > > release anyway. > > > > > > > > > > > > Having it disabled manually for the rc1 should be ok for the people > > > > > > encountering this problem. Does that sound good for you guys? > > > > > > > > > > To avoid any more confusion on this Mike and I decided that I will > > > > > prepare a new rc1 tarball with the removal commit and upload it. Will > > > > > send a mail once its up. > > > > > > > > how about.. rc2? :) > > > > > > I don't want to drag this process out unnecessarily. > > > > there are still bugs being filed on phab... and i was more making the point > > that re-spinning a tarball with the same name/version is not a good thing. > > "which rc1 do you have?" "i don't know. rc1!". :) if there is a re-spin.. at > > least call it rc2... :) i could have done a "re spin" for 1.8.1 (another > > 1.8.0) as no code changed - it was a m4 macro doing the totally unexpected. > > but i had to do 1.8.1 :( > > > > there was no "re spin" as you call it. the tarballs sent to the list were > PREVIEW tarballs, and it was explicitly stated that they may or may not have > been the final release tarballs for those versions. you absolutely could not > have done the same thing, as you did not send your prepared tarballs to any > lists prior to doing the release. so i downloaded rc1. is mine fixed? :) you didn't answer that. how do i know if its the respin or not before i download it? even for rc's if there is a re-generate at sall it should get a new name for the archive. rc2, rc3, rc4 etc. imho -- ------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" -------------- The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler) ras...@rasterman.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sponsored by Intel(R) XDK Develop, test and display web and hybrid apps with a single code base. Download it for free now! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=111408631&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
