On Sunday 12 February 2006 1:44 am, Aaron Larson wrote: > Thanks, that got it. Perhaps this is a good place to mention that I > was pretty confused when installing the dependencies mentioned in > http://svn.gnucash.org/trac/browser/gnucash/trunk/README.dependencies > The packages listed in the ubuntu 5.10 section don't seem to match > what I had to install
If you've got a record of what you did install or just have a list of package names and versions from 'dpkg -l' to replace the ones that don't exist on Ubuntu, send them to the list as a patch for README.dependencies. I don't know if Ubuntu changes package names between releases - would package names in Breezy be any different to Dapper? > It > seems like it would be "a good idea" to have a package specification, > or an apt-get command line, or something that would retrieve the > required packages. If you have an update from your own setup, send it in. The need for so many libg* libraries is because you're running Kubuntu which is predisposed to KDE, IIRC. It may merit a different section in README.dependencies compared to Ubuntu which may carry some of the gnome libraries by default. Remember, gnucash has been updated to Gnome2 libraries but those are still Gnome libraries, not KDE ones. It will run under KDE (I do it that way) - it just needs some libraries, not the entire Gnome desktop. > Pointers to such a thing would be appreciated, or > if it doesn't exist and its a good idea to have one, suggestions for > what form it should take and where I could construct it are solicited. OK. If you know which packages are different: $ dpkg -l <package-name> will give you what we need for that package. (that's a lower-case L if it's unclear.) > Now, I think I have my first (mini) bug. When opening a file that the > user doesn't have read access to, the error is a bit cryptic: > > The file type of file <FILENAME> is unknown. I know how that happens - gnucash tries to identify the file by letting each backend try to open it in turn. If none can open it, it complains that it cannot understand which type of file it is meant to be. We can't use mimetypes to distinguish the forms (as two are text/xml and we've never enforced a mime-type on old files) so we do have to open the file to determine the type. > Rather than some permission error. I think we can determine if the problem is the wrong type or the wrong permissions - probably by trying a fopen() fclose() prior to trying to determine the type. The best thing is to submit this to Bugzilla. > It had me thinking I missed some > upgrade note or something indicating the file format had changed. I > couldn't find a reference to this in Bugzilla. Is this sort of thing > considered "bug worthy"? Yes. If error messages are not helpful or actually misleading, that is a bug. (normal severity). -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgp3EvHWw4Pu6.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel