Re: Speed
On 28 Apr, Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote in message mpro.lkcwd100016oo0066@powys.org: On 27 Apr at 19:49, Michael Drake t...@netsurf-browser.org wrote: Please try r12243. I suspect this bear of little brain needs some assistance here: As I understandf it, the latest version on the NetSurf download site http://www.netsurf-browser.org/downloads/riscos/testbuilds is recompiled, possibly with new version numbers, at least once a day. AFAIK it's recompiled at least once an hour, when changes made to the source code in the repository warrant it. I can see no mean of precisely downloading r12243. Can someone advise on how I may do this? Just download the current build. You can see what rev it's up to from the entries under Recent SVN Activity further down the page: as I write this, the latest entry there is still r12243. However, as Richard says, later builds (ie ones with higher 'r' numbers) will still contain the same changes unless one of the developers specifically undoes them again for some reason. -- Steve Fryatt - Leeds, England http://www.stevefryatt.org.uk/
Re: Speed
r12243 does seem quite a bit faster here as well on my trusty Risc PC. Well done the team. -- Chris
Re: Speed
Running 12243 on an Iyonix 5.16; subjectively it doesn't seem noticeably faster than earlier versions and http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/ still fails to format correctly, but it's good to see development of a modern RISC OS browser continuing at a brisk pace, so well done, keep up the good work! George In message 51caf82f97cvj...@waitrose.com Chris Newman cvj...@waitrose.com wrote: r12243 does seem quite a bit faster here as well on my trusty Risc PC. Well done the team. --
RE: Compiling on Fedora 13
Without Haru it compiles perfect. Can you put this DIFF in the Source? For
other Fedora guys?
Thanks
David
--
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 11:07:39 +0100
From: Vincent Sanders vi...@kyllikki.org
Subject: Re: WG: Compiling on Fedora 13
To: netsurf-users@netsurf-browser.org
Message-ID: 20110427100736.ga3...@kyllikki.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 11:44:49AM +0200, David Sandberg wrote:
-Urspr|ngliche Nachricht-
Von: David Sandberg [mailto:david_sandb...@alice-dsl.net]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. April 2011 22:25
An: ''
Betreff: Compiling on Fedora 13
I'd try to build netsurf like the documentation for Fedora
with all the
Dependencies build.
It was not possible to compile the Source without Errors:
This is the result:
[root@Acer1 netsurf]# PKG_CONFIG_PATH=/usr/local/lib/pkgconfig make
TARGET=gtk
M.CONFIG: JPEG (libjpeg)enabled
(NETSURF_USE_JPEG := YES)
M.CONFIG: JNG/MNG/PNG (libmng) disabled
(NETSURF_USE_MNG := NO)
M.CONFIG: PDF export (haru) enabled
(NETSURF_USE_HARU_PDF := YES)
M.CONFIG: glibc internal iconv enabled
(NETSURF_USE_LIBICONV_PLUG :=
YES)
M.CONFIG: SVG (librsvg-2.0) disabled
(NETSURF_USE_RSVG := NO)
M.CONFIG: SVG (libsvgtiny) disabled
(NETSURF_USE_NSSVG := NO)
M.CONFIG: Sprite (librosprite) auto-enabled
(NETSURF_USE_ROSPRITE :=
AUTO)
M.CONFIG: BMP (libnsbmp)enabled
(NETSURF_USE_BMP := YES)
M.CONFIG: GIF (libnsgif)enabled
(NETSURF_USE_GIF := YES)
M.CONFIG: PNG (libpng)enabled
(NETSURF_USE_PNG := YES)
M.CONFIG: WebP (libwebp)disabled
(NETSURF_USE_WEBP := NO)
Use of uninitialized value $svninfo{repositoryroot} in length at
utils/svn-testament.pl line 111.
TESTMENT: unchanged
LINK: nsgtk
/usr/bin/ld: build-Linux-gtk/gtk_dialogs_options.o:
undefined reference to
symbol 'lround@@GLIBC_2.1'
/usr/bin/ld: note: 'lround@@GLIBC_2.1' is defined in DSO
/lib/libm.so.6 so
try adding it to the linker command line
/lib/libm.so.6: could not read symbols: Invalid operation
collect2: ld backs 1 as End-Status
make: *** [nsgtk] Error 1
Can someone help me. Probably a linker problem. Pleas give
the syntax for
the linker command line.
This is because glibc no longer automatically links teh math library
(libm) with the toolchain you are using. Very easy fix:
In the main Makefile around line 345
You will see:
# common libraries without pkg-config support
LDFLAGS += -lz
change the LDFLAGS line to
LDFLAGS += -lz -lm
That should sort the link for you
The formal diff is
Index: Makefile
===
--- Makefile (revision 12242)
+++ Makefile (working copy)
@@ -343,7 +343,7 @@
$(eval $(call
feature_enabled,LIBICONV_PLUG,-DLIBICONV_PLUG,,glibc internal iconv))
# common libraries without pkg-config support
-LDFLAGS += -lz
+LDFLAGS += -lz -lm
CFLAGS += -DNETSURF_UA_FORMAT_STRING=\$(NETSURF_UA_FORMAT_STRING)\
CFLAGS += -DNETSURF_HOMEPAGE=\$(NETSURF_HOMEPAGE)\
--
Regards Vincent
http://www.kyllikki.org/
End of netsurf-users Digest, Vol 48, Issue 17
*
Re: Speed
On 28 Apr at 11:26, Steve Fryatt li...@stevefryatt.org.uk wrote: On 28 Apr, Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote in message mpro.lkcwd100016oo0066@powys.org: On 27 Apr at 19:49, Michael Drake t...@netsurf-browser.org wrote: Please try r12243. I suspect this bear of little brain needs some assistance here: As I understandf it, the latest version on the NetSurf download site http://www.netsurf-browser.org/downloads/riscos/testbuilds is recompiled, possibly with new version numbers, at least once a day. AFAIK it's recompiled at least once an hour, when changes made to the source code in the repository warrant it. I can see no mean of precisely downloading r12243. Can someone advise on how I may do this? Just download the current build. You can see what rev it's up to from the entries under Recent SVN Activity further down the page: as I write this, the latest entry there is still r12243. However, as Richard says, later builds (ie ones with higher 'r' numbers) will still contain the same changes unless one of the developers specifically undoes them again for some reason. And the last sentence confirms the problem. There is no means of actually downloading any specific revision number and instructions to do so are plain misleading. Or do I have this wrong? -- Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org for a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
Re: Speed
On 28 Apr, Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote in message mpro.lkd2te2hm0068@powys.org: On 28 Apr at 11:26, Steve Fryatt li...@stevefryatt.org.uk wrote: Just download the current build. You can see what rev it's up to from the entries under Recent SVN Activity further down the page: as I write this, the latest entry there is still r12243. However, as Richard says, later builds (ie ones with higher 'r' numbers) will still contain the same changes unless one of the developers specifically undoes them again for some reason. And the last sentence confirms the problem. There is no means of actually downloading any specific revision number and instructions to do so are plain misleading. Or do I have this wrong? Why would you want to download r12243 specifically? You were advised to try r12243: that version or any later one will do[1]. In effect, being told to try rX means -- to all intents and purposes -- download a new test build and try it. 1. The only time it doesn't is if the change in question has subsequently been undone. As Rob says: a) this isn't common, and b) if the change in question has been reverted, you probably didn't want to test it anyway. I only mentioned that to stop the pedants biting, but it seems to have failed... -- Steve Fryatt - Leeds, England http://www.stevefryatt.org.uk/
Re: Speed
In a mad moment - Steve Fryatt mumbled : On 28 Apr, Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote in message mpro.lkd2te2hm0068@powys.org: On 28 Apr at 11:26, Steve Fryatt li...@stevefryatt.org.uk wrote: Just download the current build. You can see what rev it's up to from the entries under Recent SVN Activity further down the page: as I write this, the latest entry there is still r12243. However, as Richard says, later builds (ie ones with higher 'r' numbers) will still contain the same changes unless one of the developers specifically undoes them again for some reason. And the last sentence confirms the problem. There is no means of actually downloading any specific revision number and instructions to do so are plain misleading. Or do I have this wrong? Why would you want to download r12243 specifically? You were advised to try r12243: that version or any later one will do[1]. In effect, being told to try rX means -- to all intents and purposes -- download a new test build and try it. I have just tried r12243 on an RPC (RO 402)and can confirm the general (subjective) feeling that it is a fair bit faster, except for heavily image laden pages. Great work lads! and Thank You. -- |)[ |)ryn [vansmail to - brynev...@bryork.freeuk.com
Re: Speed
On 28 Apr 2011, Steve Fryatt li...@stevefryatt.org.uk wrote: On 28 Apr, Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote in message mpro.lkd2te2hm0068@powys.org: On 28 Apr at 11:26, Steve Fryatt li...@stevefryatt.org.uk wrote: Just download the current build. You can see what rev it's up to from the entries under Recent SVN Activity further down the page: as I write this, the latest entry there is still r12243. However, as Richard says, later builds (ie ones with higher 'r' numbers) will still contain the same changes unless one of the developers specifically undoes them again for some reason. And the last sentence confirms the problem. There is no means of actually downloading any specific revision number and instructions to do so are plain misleading. Or do I have this wrong? Why would you want to download r12243 specifically? You were advised to try r12243: that version or any later one will do[1]. In effect, being told to try rX means -- to all intents and purposes -- download a new test build and try it. 1. The only time it doesn't is if the change in question has subsequently been undone. As Rob says: a) this isn't common, and b) if the change in question has been reverted, you probably didn't want to test it anyway. I only mentioned that to stop the pedants biting, but it seems to have failed... Sometimes something stops working, as I keep a selection of previous revisions I can get some idea of when this happened to try and find the cause. If other revisions were still available it might be possible to locate the change that was the cause, or at least in which revision it occured. We are constantly warned that dev builds may be unstable, so, as I access the internet on a friends computer I always leave it to auto load the latest stable version and change to the latest dev build if I have problems with a site. -- Erving
Re: WG: Compiling on Fedora 13 (Vincent Sanders)
In message 7FC9ECC5684E4D10865586D8AFABDB5F@WindowHusch David Sandberg da...@tomsand.com wrote: Thank you Vincent, But now there is another Error (perhaps in haru?): [...] build-Linux-gtk/desktop_save_pdf_pdf_plotters.o: In function `pdf_extract_image': /tmp/netsurf/desktop/save_pdf/pdf_plotters.c:491: undefined reference to `HPDF_Image_AddSMask' collect2: ld backs 1 as end-status make: *** [nsgtk] Error 1 [root@Acer1 netsurf]# You need libHaru 2.2.0 (released mid Oct 2010) instead of an earlier version. John. -- John Tytgat j...@netsurf-browser.org
Re: Speed
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 21:09:06 +0100, Erving wrote: Sometimes something stops working, as I keep a selection of previous revisions I can get some idea of when this happened to try and find the cause. If other revisions were still available it might be possible to locate the change that was the cause, or at least in which revision it occured. I see where you're coming from, but to do so would take up an awful lot of storage space on the server, and encourage downloading of versions we are trying to obsolete. There is no benefit to going back to older revisions, except in specific cases where something has broken, and even then the user ought to be reverting back to the last stable (release) build - after submitting a bug report of course! Usually if we know what has broken, referring to the SVN logs allows us to pinpoint when this happened anyway, and building older revisions ourselves is always an option if it comes to that. Chris
Re: WG: Compiling on Fedora 13 (Vincent Sanders)
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 22:53:43 GMT, John Tytgat wrote: In message 7FC9ECC5684E4D10865586D8AFABDB5F@WindowHusch David Sandberg da...@tomsand.com wrote: Thank you Vincent, But now there is another Error (perhaps in haru?): [...] build-Linux-gtk/desktop_save_pdf_pdf_plotters.o: In function `pdf_extract_image': /tmp/netsurf/desktop/save_pdf/pdf_plotters.c:491: undefined reference to `HPDF_Image_AddSMask' collect2: ld backs 1 as end-status make: *** [nsgtk] Error 1 [root@Acer1 netsurf]# You need libHaru 2.2.0 (released mid Oct 2010) instead of an earlier version. ...or NETSURF_USE_HARU_PDF := NO set in makefile.config, given that PDF export won't work currently. Chris
