I did a build as well and ran the tests. Seems fine. GC
On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 11:25 AM Riccardo Mottola < riccardo.mott...@libero.it> wrote: > Hi > > I did a build ot base/gui/back on linux/amd64 gcc and found no issues. > Maybe this is enough to tell that the packages are complete. Didn't test > for bugs on all platforms to know if you caught a good git version or not. > > Riccardo > > Ivan Vučica wrote: > > (This is not a release announcement) > > > > A signed build of gnustep-gui / gnustep-back 0.29.0 has been uploaded > > at http://badc0de.net/gs/2021. > > > > Actual final releases will, as always, be distributed via GNUstep FTP. > > Please give this test build a go. > > > > === > > > > Psst! If you are using themes such as Rik, you might need to rebuild > > them, even if there were no code changes. This is usually the case, I > > suspect, as well; but today I was bit by it for the first time. It was > > curious as I only saw problems on applications I rebuilt -- which in > > retrospect makes sense, given the SO bump. > > > > === > > > > Now that all four libs are prepared, I will give it a few days to > > receive a stop signal, or an actively-green-light from maintainers. > > Then I will send out announcement emails, create GitHub releases, etc. > > > > Of course, if you spot a small thing that we _can_ fix post release > > (i.e. not a full showstopper), I will be happy to cut a smaller > > point-release. > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 10:34 PM Ivan Vučica <i...@vucica.net> wrote: > >> (This is not a release announcement) > >> > >> A signed build of gnustep-base 1.28.0 has been uploaded at > >> http://badc0de.net/gs/2021. > >> > >> Actual final releases will, as always, be distributed via GNUstep FTP. > >> Please give this test build a go. > >> > >> I will continue preparing gnustep-gui and gnustep-back. > >> > >> On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 8:12 PM Ivan Vučica <i...@vucica.net> wrote: > >>> I am resuming work on releases today and hope to prepare at least > >>> -base tarball today. > >>> > >>> On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 11:43 AM Frederik Seiffert > >>> <frede...@algoriddim.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Am 22.03.2021 um 19:03 schrieb Richard Frith-Macdonald < > rich...@frithmacdonald.me.uk>: > >>>> > >>>> IIRC the standard/historic behavior is that an object can retain > itself in the -dealloc method, to extend its own lifetime, and I guess that > the singletons do that (I haven't checked). > >>>> I think that behavior changed for ARC, so it could be that the > runtime is performing an ARC style deallocation when it should be calling > NSDeallocateObject() (or something odd is going on in the > NSDeallocateObject() function). > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I’ve pushed a change in the following PR that fixes the test failure: > >>>> > https://github.com/gnustep/libs-base/pull/177/commits/e1e661286a6b9d717dc0312bed5f8b4b5e549d6f > >>>> > >>>> Frederik > >>>> > > > -- Gregory Casamento GNUstep Lead Developer / OLC, Principal Consultant http://www.gnustep.org - http://heronsperch.blogspot.com https://www.patreon.com/bePatron?u=352392 - Become a Patron https://gf.me/u/x8m3sx - My GNUstep GoFundMe https://teespring.com/stores/gnustep - Store
