Re: [GNC-dev] Windows Build

[John Ralls]

> On May 17, 2018, at 9:49 AM, Geert Janssens  
> wrote:
> 
> Op donderdag 17 mei 2018 18:11:49 CEST schreef Robert Fewell:
>> Trying to answer my own question...
>> 
>> I assume the file size difference is because the nightly have debug
>> information built in.
>> 
> Indeed.
> 
>> I know the last bit is the commit it is based on, can not see why they
>> start with 'g' but can find 5f5ad968f but not d2ef5fd0f
>> 
> The 'g' comes by default from git's "describe" command and refers to (g)it 
> commit.
> 
> Perhaps d2ef5fd0f is not found because John started the build from a commit 
> that never got pushed ? Can't find it either in my git repo.
> 

It exists only in the reflog on the machine that built the tarballs: I re-made 
the tarballs (that's why they're 3.1-1) after making an inconsequential change 
to CMakeLists.txt, to wit:
--- a/CMakeLists.txt
+++ b/CMakeLists.txt
@@ -14,11 +14,11 @@ ENABLE_TESTING()
 SET (GNUCASH_MAJOR_VERSION 3)
 SET (GNUCASH_MINOR_VERSION 1)
 SET (VERSION "${GNUCASH_MAJOR_VERSION}.${GNUCASH_MINOR_VERSION}")
-SET (GNUCASH_LATEST_STABLE_SERIES 3.1)
+SET (GNUCASH_LATEST_STABLE_SERIES 3.x)
 
 SET (PACKAGE gnucash)
 SET (PACKAGE_NAME GnuCash)
-SET (PACKAGE_VERSION 3.0)
+SET (PACKAGE_VERSION 3.1)
 SET (PACKAGE_BUGREPORT gnucash-devel@gnucash.org)
 SET (PACKAGE_TARNAME ${PACKAGE})
 SET (PACKAGE_STRING "${PACKAGE_NAME} ${PACKAGE_VERSION}")

Neither variable is actually used for anything, so a better change would 
probably be to simply remove them.

The difference between 3.1-2 and 3.1-3 is that the latter is built with the 
latest release of libofx (0.9.13 instead of 0.9.10) to see if it fixes Chris 
Good's OFX import problem (https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=795347). 
It appears instead to have caused other problems. The "official" current 
release on Windows is 3.1-2.

Regards,
John Ralls

___
gnucash-devel mailing list
gnucash-devel@gnucash.org
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel

Re: [GNC-dev] Windows Build

[Geert Janssens]

Op donderdag 17 mei 2018 18:11:49 CEST schreef Robert Fewell:
> Trying to answer my own question...
> 
> I assume the file size difference is because the nightly have debug
> information built in.
> 
Indeed.

> I know the last bit is the commit it is based on, can not see why they
> start with 'g' but can find 5f5ad968f but not d2ef5fd0f
> 
The 'g' comes by default from git's "describe" command and refers to (g)it 
commit.

Perhaps d2ef5fd0f is not found because John started the build from a commit 
that never got pushed ? Can't find it either in my git repo.

Geert


___
gnucash-devel mailing list
gnucash-devel@gnucash.org
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel

Re: [GNC-dev] Windows Builds

[Geert Janssens]

Op donderdag 17 mei 2018 17:44:52 CEST schreef Robert Fewell:
> I was looking at Bug 796083 and after some testing on Linux realised that
> my reconcile sort fix may of fixed this.
> 
> Booted into Windows 10 and downloaded the nightly build
> gnucash-3.1-2018-05-16-git-3.1-59-g5f5ad968f+.setup.exe and indeed it was
> fixed. Just to make sure I also downloaded the latest release
> build gnucash-3.1-3.setup.exe but noticed that the sort order of the
> reconcile dialog was different, no default sort.
> 
> The nightly shows in the about box version Build ID: git 3.1-59-g5f5ad968f+
> (2018-05-15) and is 97Meg
> The release shows in the about box version Build ID: 3.0-118-gd2ef5fd0f+
> (2018-04-28) and is 91Meg
> 
> Any ideas why ?
> 
The release 3.1-3 is generated from the 3.1 tag which dates from 2018-04-28 
(as the Build ID shows). Even if it was only re-released a couple of days ago. 
The "-3" indicates fixes in packaging (so changes in either gnucash-on-windows 
or corrections directly made on the build server).

Your reconcile fixes on the other hand were added to the maint branch after 
the 3.1 release commit was tagged. So they will never be in any 3.1 release.

In case you're wondering why the release's build ID starts with "3.0" instead 
of "3.1", that is because John forgot to tag the build before kicking of the 
release procedure.

> I was going to ask the reporter to try a later version, I think I will
> specify the nightly, don't want another bug saying there is no default sort
> order !!

Yes, the latest nightly is the right one to point at (which I saw you did).

Geert


___
gnucash-devel mailing list
gnucash-devel@gnucash.org
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel

Re: [GNC-dev] BZ Migration: Groups?

[Derek Atkins]

Hi,

"Frank H. Ellenberger"  writes:

> At least the developers as shown on
> https://bugzilla.gnome.org/page.cgi?id=browse.html=GnuCash
> are important.

Yes, that's useful.  I wish there were a JSON API to grab that list.
I might need to hard-code that this.

> I vaguely remember some were restricted to single components like
> documentation, but forgot: was that on the repository or BZ?

Probably the repo.  I don't think we have separate bug groups in BZ.

>> I also don't see a way to grab "watchers".
>
> Isn't there the CC list on the bugs?

Yes, but that's not what I mean.  I mean whether a user is watching one
of the gnucash-...@gnome.bugs pseudo-users.

> Or watchers of pseudo users? That are set in
> https://bugzilla.gnome.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
> of the respective user.

Yes.  This information is only available for yourself, when you're
logged in.  AFAICT there is no way for me to get information about what
users you are watching (although I can see who is watching me).

-derek

-- 
   Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory
   Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board  (SIPB)
   URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/PP-ASEL-IA N1NWH
   warl...@mit.eduPGP key available
___
gnucash-devel mailing list
gnucash-devel@gnucash.org
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel

[GNC-dev] Windows Build

[Robert Fewell]

Trying to answer my own question...

I assume the file size difference is because the nightly have debug
information built in.

I know the last bit is the commit it is based on, can not see why they
start with 'g' but can find 5f5ad968f but not d2ef5fd0f

Regards,

 Bob
___
gnucash-devel mailing list
gnucash-devel@gnucash.org
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel

[GNC-dev] Windows Builds

[Robert Fewell]

I was looking at Bug 796083 and after some testing on Linux realised that
my reconcile sort fix may of fixed this.

Booted into Windows 10 and downloaded the nightly build
gnucash-3.1-2018-05-16-git-3.1-59-g5f5ad968f+.setup.exe and indeed it was
fixed. Just to make sure I also downloaded the latest release
build gnucash-3.1-3.setup.exe but noticed that the sort order of the
reconcile dialog was different, no default sort.

The nightly shows in the about box version Build ID: git 3.1-59-g5f5ad968f+
(2018-05-15) and is 97Meg
The release shows in the about box version Build ID: 3.0-118-gd2ef5fd0f+
(2018-04-28) and is 91Meg

Any ideas why ?

I was going to ask the reporter to try a later version, I think I will
specify the nightly, don't want another bug saying there is no default sort
order !!

Bob
___
gnucash-devel mailing list
gnucash-devel@gnucash.org
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel

Re: [GNC-dev] Ubuntu. Both guile-2.0 and guile-2.2 installed, can't find guile-2.2

[Christopher Lam]

As it turns out, thanks to #guile, I found out I had to 'sudo apt 
install guile-2.2-dev' to properly get the right guile-2.2.


C


On 11/05/18 21:29, Christopher Lam wrote:

As per subject.

Having successfully worked on guile-2.0, I wished to try 2.2 and 'sudo 
apt install guile-2.2' and all was well. I can run guile-2.2.


However cmake rebuild script cannot find guile-2.2 and tries to 
configure with guile-2.0 instead.


However the test suite runs using guile-2.2 and obviously fails.

I think the CMake guile-2.0/2.2 detector can't handle having both.

Any clues?

Attached logfile from cmake... && cd build && ninja && ninja check



___
gnucash-devel mailing list
gnucash-devel@gnucash.org
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel

Re: [GNC-dev] Bugzilla down?

[Derek Atkins]

Hi,

On Thu, May 17, 2018 6:47 am, Chris Good wrote:
> Hi,
> Bugzilla had been really slow last couple of days and seems to be down
> now.
> I know the migration is being worked on but is this known about or just
> me?

I was just able to reach it.  But there was a failure around 4:24am ET.
So it may have gone offline for a bit.  But it looks to be back now.

> Regards, Chris Good

-derek

-- 
   Derek Atkins 617-623-3745
   de...@ihtfp.com www.ihtfp.com
   Computer and Internet Security Consultant

___
gnucash-devel mailing list
gnucash-devel@gnucash.org
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel

[GNC-dev] Bugzilla down?

[Chris Good]

Hi,
Bugzilla had been really slow last couple of days and seems to be down now.
I know the migration is being worked on but is this known about or just me?

Regards, Chris Good
___
gnucash-devel mailing list
gnucash-devel@gnucash.org
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel