Re: [blfs-dev] gnome-3 : issues

2012-01-04 Thread Bruce Dubbs
Ken Moffat wrote: > On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 09:05:08PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >> On Jan 2, 2012 8:52 PM, "Ken Moffat" wrote: >>> And since I'm replying to myself, a question for Bruce and anyone >>> else building trinity - can trinity's kdegraphics use the 'kde4' (I >>> suppose that means QT-4

Re: [blfs-dev] gnome-3 : issues

2012-01-02 Thread Ken Moffat
On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 09:05:08PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > On Jan 2, 2012 8:52 PM, "Ken Moffat" wrote: > > > > And since I'm replying to myself, a question for Bruce and anyone > > else building trinity - can trinity's kdegraphics use the 'kde4' (I > > suppose that means QT-4, but I'm not cer

Re: [blfs-dev] gnome-3 : issues

2012-01-02 Thread Bruce Dubbs
On Jan 2, 2012 8:52 PM, "Ken Moffat" wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 09:04:27PM +, Ken Moffat wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 08:16:33PM +, Ken Moffat wrote: > > > > > And since I'm replying to myself, a question for Bruce and anyone > else building trinity - can trinity's kdegraph

Re: [blfs-dev] gnome-3 : issues

2012-01-02 Thread Ken Moffat
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 09:04:27PM +, Ken Moffat wrote: > On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 08:16:33PM +, Ken Moffat wrote: > > > > There are a number of additional packages which might be contentious, > > as well as a few other points to discuss (if this approach is > > agreeable), > > 1. Cantare

Re: [blfs-dev] gnome-3 : issues

2011-12-24 Thread Ken Moffat
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 01:07:27AM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Ken Moffat wrote: > > > 3. Gdb - Useful if you have to debug a program, but not part of > > gnome. I've stopped building it, but arguably it should be in the > > book. > > If you add this, it should be in Chapter 12, Programming. Th

Re: [blfs-dev] gnome-3 : issues

2011-12-23 Thread Bruce Dubbs
Ken Moffat wrote: > 3. Gdb - Useful if you have to debug a program, but not part of > gnome. I've stopped building it, but arguably it should be in the > book. If you add this, it should be in Chapter 12, Programming. The packages there are in alpabetical order. Another package that's probabl

Re: [blfs-dev] gnome-3 : issues

2011-12-23 Thread Ken Moffat
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 12:47:05PM +1100, Wayne Blaszczyk wrote: > On 24/12/11 11:44, Ken Moffat wrote: > > > For webkit - you're right. I think Wayne has specified everything in > > case it is needed. Somethng else to review after merging. > > > > I'm not sure if it was with webkit package,

Re: [blfs-dev] gnome-3 : issues

2011-12-23 Thread Wayne Blaszczyk
On 24/12/11 11:44, Ken Moffat wrote: > For accepting /usr/libexec - I'm mostly in favour : if upstream > want to use it, that's their decision. I think it probably violates > the fhs, which will be why the book has avoided it. 'Mostly' > because there are occasional packages such as dhcp which

Re: [blfs-dev] gnome-3 : issues

2011-12-23 Thread Ken Moffat
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 11:58:17PM +, Andrew Benton wrote: > On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 21:04:27 + > Ken Moffat wrote: > > > 4. Webkitgtk - Andy added --with-gtk-2.0 : that needs to be changed > > to an option, because gnome-3 needs it to be built with gtk+-3.0 > > Fair enough. I added the --wi

Re: [blfs-dev] gnome-3 : issues

2011-12-23 Thread Andrew Benton
On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 21:04:27 + Ken Moffat wrote: > 4. Webkitgtk - Andy added --with-gtk-2.0 : that needs to be changed > to an option, because gnome-3 needs it to be built with gtk+-3.0 Fair enough. I added the --with-gtk-2.0 because the gimp can use webkit-1.0 if it's available. As long as

Re: [blfs-dev] gnome-3 : issues

2011-12-23 Thread Ken Moffat
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 09:04:27PM +, Ken Moffat wrote: > On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 08:16:33PM +, Ken Moffat wrote: > > > > There are a number of additional packages which might be contentious, > > as well as a few other points to discuss (if this approach is > > agreeable), > Forgot anot

Re: [blfs-dev] gnome-3 : issues

2011-12-23 Thread Ken Moffat
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 08:16:33PM +, Ken Moffat wrote: > > There are a number of additional packages which might be contentious, > as well as a few other points to discuss (if this approach is > agreeable), 1. Cantarell fonts - I'm surprised that the gnome devs prefer a specific font, inste