Randy McMurchy wrote:
Hi all,
Looking for some advice on how to interpret many of the GNOME packages
test suites. Many of the packages don't do any real testing of the
build when you run 'make check', but they *will* validate all the
.xml and .omf files running 'make check'.
Should I count this
I wrote:
SeaMonkey has the --enable-pango configure switch that enables the use
of Pango for text layout and printing. Without this (or, alternatively
and harder to set up, Xprint), it is impossible to print
non-ISO-8859-1 documents on real PostScript printers from Mozilla.
Scratch that. Tes
Randy McMurchy wrote:
So, to reiterate, I'm asking what in the hell is the purpose of
the "make check" in these packages? Is it to test the build, or to
test the validity of the documentation files? Are the doc files
being built during the build, and then they are tested?
This target is presum
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 02/01/06 22:54 CST:
> OK, the issue then is what are we testing. If it is the build, then
> include it. If it is just the packaging, then it is essentially doing
> the same thing as the md5 sum and adds no value. In that case, it
> should be omitted because it i
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 02/01/06 22:34 CST:
>
>
>>Seems a litle light for a test suite, but there are some others that are
>>light too. I wouldn't bother to add the test time unless it is
>>significant, say greater than 0.5 SBU.
>
>
> I was more looking at advi
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 02/01/06 22:34 CST:
> Seems a litle light for a test suite, but there are some others that are
> light too. I wouldn't bother to add the test time unless it is
> significant, say greater than 0.5 SBU.
I was more looking at advice on should the text say "To test t
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Looking for some advice on how to interpret many of the GNOME packages
> test suites. Many of the packages don't do any real testing of the
> build when you run 'make check', but they *will* validate all the
> .xml and .omf files running 'make check'.
>
> Shoul
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Hi all,
Looking for some advice on how to interpret many of the GNOME packages
test suites. Many of the packages don't do any real testing of the
build when you run 'make check', but they *will* validate all the
.xml and .omf files running 'make check'.
Should I count this
On 2/1/06, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Looking for some advice on how to interpret many of the GNOME packages
> test suites. Many of the packages don't do any real testing of the
> build when you run 'make check', but they *will* validate all the
> .xml and .omf files ru
Hi all,
Looking for some advice on how to interpret many of the GNOME packages
test suites. Many of the packages don't do any real testing of the
build when you run 'make check', but they *will* validate all the
.xml and .omf files running 'make check'.
Should I count this as a test suite, and pu
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> 1) how will this link be presented?
The exact format is tbd.
> 2) will there be accompanying text?
Not really. Just "User Notes: "
However, an expansion of wiki.xml is reasonable.
> 3) will it be anything other than a normal external link?
No.
-- Bruce
--
http://l
El Miércoles, 1 de Febrero de 2006 10:14, Richard A Downing escribió:
> All that is needed is a simple list in the form, e.g.:
>
> libmng: libjpeg lcms
>
> for each package and a blank list for those with no deps.
>
> libjpeg:
> lcms:
> bc:
>
> all wrapped up with a bit of makefile magic.
>
> You
El Miércoles, 1 de Febrero de 2006 03:02, Bruce Dubbs escribió:
> There has been some discussion of where to place a link to User Notes on
> BLFS pages. After reviewing the messages, I want to get the opinion one
> more time from the members of this list so we can standardize.
I vote for placing
Am Dienstag, 31. Januar 2006 23:52 schrieb Randy McMurchy:
> Rainer.wirtz wrote these words on 01/31/06 13:43 CST:
> > Check them (and k3b) out with
> > svn co svn://anonsvn.kde.org/home/kde/trunk/extragear/multimedia
>
> Not to argue, but because I'm actually curious, why would I consider
> using
On 1/31/06, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> If there is some introductory text to the link, explaining that
> the following link contains some information that may or may not
> be applicable to you (the reader), then it can be upfront and
> prominent. And actually doesn't matter where
I wrote:
I am going to take care of the Mozilla -> Seamonkey update myself
today, unless there are objections.
Unfortunately, there is an issue with Pango on the CD. While it is
certainly not a showstopper for the CD (because it doesn't support
printing), I would like to resolve it first, as
Hey there.
Here's a couple of things I noticed with the book, and *very*
coincidentally they go hand in hand in terms of my bringing this up.
First off there's a typo (or two? I'm noticing stuff as I go) on the new
BLFS Wiki page:
The name of the page is 'BLFS WiKi', but I don't think the s
Richard A Downing wrote:
The wording and style of the link are more important that the page
position. I'd like it to stand out with a special rendering CSS. If I
have to vote on a section, I'd say Command Explanations, because I
suspect (but could easily be wrong) it's quite likely that the wiki
Dear List,
the ftp link for CDParanoia-III-9.8 is broken.
The current link is to
ftp://ftp.yars.free.net/pub/software/unix/util/cd/cdparanoia-III-alpha9.8.src.tgz
The site has been rearranged, and this naked tarball has vanished (though it's
probably
buried inside the FreeBSD 6
It was pointed out on Greg's DIY-Linux list that make can be used to
print a dependency list - not nearly so beautifully as Nico's
dependency graph, but as a useful list.
I think it should be possible to generate the makefile directly from
the BLFS Book XML, but I'm not competent to do this myself
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 20:02:06 -0600
Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There has been some discussion of where to place a link to User Notes
> on BLFS pages. After reviewing the messages, I want to get the
> opinion one more time from the members of this list so we can
> standardize.
>
> Th
21 matches
Mail list logo
