Re: [Idea] PhoneGap support for Ubuntu
On Nov 6, 2012 2:45 AM, Ma Xiaojun damage3...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 7:22 PM, James Haigh james.r.ha...@gmail.com wrote: Please take a look at Kivy. It aims at crossplatform multitouch support for both mobile and desktop. Anyone looking at web-based apps as a way to be crossplatform should consider Kivy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kivy James. It looks decent. But supporting one platform doesn't mean that another is useless. I never said it was; I agree that PhoneGap should support Ubuntu. Although granted, I'm no fan of JavaScript-based apps. I think with LLVM around, and OS's like Android that are capable of sandboxing each application, the days of JavaScript apps are numbered. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LLVM On Nov 6, 2012 5:58 AM, Timo Jyrinki timo.jyri...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/11/6 Ma Xiaojun damage3...@gmail.com: This is inspired by the following post: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2012-November/msg6.html Since Ubuntu is heading towards Tablets and mobile phones now. It would be very nice if we also join the PhoneGap camp. This occurred to me is as well when the new mobility focus was announced a few weeks ago. What? Could you please provide a link? I remember years ago hype about Ubuntu Mobile - which kinda became Moblin, IIRC, which with a couple of mergers and renames (now called Tizen I think) hasn't had a raving success. Now there's excitement about Ubuntu for Android - and I really do hope Canonical get it out there before it goes the same way, or competitors get there first. I think Canonical should focus on Ubuntu for Android before revisiting the ambitions of Ubuntu Mobile. If you or someone has interest to tinker with the code, go ahead and add Ubuntu support :) There are indeed many platforms which try to do the same as PhoneGap, so pick your choice and add Ubuntu in front of developers' eyes! This is the reason why I think PhoneGap should support Ubuntu! :-p Best regards, James. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Update manager mandating rebooting
On 31 October 2012 11:49, Daniel J Blueman dan...@quora.org wrote: I'd love to hear what other users and developers think about this: The refreshed update manager (almost) always displays The computer needs to restart to finish installing updates, with a default button Restart highlighted. Not only that, the window close button is not present. I am not supporting the current interface, but just pointing out that it it still possible to close the update manager by right clicking it in the launcher and selecting quit. I notice though that after this mornings updates, which I did via command line and which updated the kernel the gear icon has not gone red. If I run the update manager however it says that I need to reboot but the icon is still not red. Colin -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: EFF Privacy; hopefully Ubuntu will listen to users
On 05/11/12 09:08, Jordon Bedwell wrote: This is from my perspective though and I have not really followed all too closely since I am the type of person to remove what I don't want and block stuff like Canonical's NTP and other tracking via our hardware firewalls instead of complaining about stuff that I myself can fix. I am curious on what is this block stuff like Canonical's NTP and other tracking You state, or imply, that NTP -- which I take to mean the network time protocol --, specifically Canonical's NTP, has been added with the ability to track its users. You then keep on stating this is the same with other tracking, without any details. Can you please provide some pointers (or, even better, facts) to allow us to verify a -- so far -- baseless assertion? Cheers, ..C.. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: gfortran-4.6 dependency problems
On 4 Nov 2012, at 15:29, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: On 2 November 2012 21:45, JC Lawrence j...@cydesign.com wrote: The current version of gfortran in 12.0 LTS depends on gfortran-4.6, which in turn depends on GCC-4.6 (=, not =), which can't be satisfied as the only GCC release in 12.0 is 4.6.1-2. Is this likely to be resolved soon? I need gfortran and am having the very devil of a time building GCC and thus gfortran from sources (arghh!). # apt-get install gfortran Can you show the output of: $ apt-cache policy gfortran $ apt-cache policy gfortran gfortran: Installed: (none) Candidate: 4:4.6.1-2ubuntu5 Version table: 4:4.6.1-2ubuntu5 0 500 http://us-west-1.ec2.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ oneiric/main amd64 Packages Micah's assessment of a stale package repository was accurate (the AWS repositories are quite stale). After moving /etc/apt/sources.list over to the requisite Ubuntu repositories: # apt-get -o Debug::pkgProblemResolver=yes install gfortran-4.6 Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done Starting Starting 2 Investigating (0) gfortran-4.6 [ amd64 ] none - 4.6.1-9ubuntu3 ( devel ) Broken gfortran-4.6:amd64 Depends on gcc-4.6-base [ amd64 ] 4.6.3-1ubuntu5 ( libs ) (= 4.6.1-9ubuntu3) Considering gcc-4.6-base:amd64 61 as a solution to gfortran-4.6:amd64 Broken gfortran-4.6:amd64 Depends on gcc-4.6 [ amd64 ] none - 4.6.1-9ubuntu3 ( devel ) (= 4.6.1-9ubuntu3) Considering gcc-4.6:amd64 1 as a solution to gfortran-4.6:amd64 Reinst Failed early because of gcc-4.6-base:amd64 Broken gfortran-4.6:amd64 Depends on libgfortran3 [ amd64 ] none - 4.6.1-9ubuntu3 ( libs ) (= 4.6.1-9ubuntu3) Considering libgfortran3:amd64 1 as a solution to gfortran-4.6:amd64 Reinst Failed early because of gcc-4.6-base:amd64 Broken gfortran-4.6:amd64 Depends on libc6-dev [ amd64 ] none - 2.13-20ubuntu5.2 ( libdevel ) (= 2.13-0ubuntu6) Considering libc6-dev:amd64 1 as a solution to gfortran-4.6:amd64 Reinst Failed early because of libc6:amd64 Considering libc6-dev:amd64 1 as a solution to gfortran-4.6:amd64 Broken gfortran-4.6:amd64 Depends on libmpc2 [ amd64 ] none - 0.9-3 | 0.9-4 ( libs ) Considering libmpc2:amd64 1 as a solution to gfortran-4.6:amd64 Re-Instated libmpfr4:amd64 Re-Instated libmpc2:amd64 Done Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable distribution that some required packages have not yet been created or been moved out of Incoming. The following information may help to resolve the situation: The following packages have unmet dependencies: gfortran-4.6 : Depends: gcc-4.6-base (= 4.6.1-9ubuntu3) but 4.6.3-1ubuntu5 is to be installed Depends: gcc-4.6 (= 4.6.1-9ubuntu3) but it is not going to be installed Depends: libgfortran3 (= 4.6.1-9ubuntu3) but it is not going to be installed Depends: libc6-dev (= 2.13-0ubuntu6) but it is not going to be installed E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages. The long short and tall of which is that sufficient was pushed forward in a prior apt-get upgrade that moving back to get coherence with the current gfortran packages was a PITA. After dropping back to a raw-install, everything is again happy in the house of cross-compilation. Thanks guys! -- JCL -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
