Hello,
I have committed substantial changes to the mustang package in the
svn repo.
First, the sources have been patched with a patch from upstream.
Unfortunately, upstream has not changed the version number.
Therefore, the patch level has been added to the release. I don't
know if this
Hi Morten!
On Feb 4, 2008 10:36 AM, Morten Kjeldgaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> First, the sources have been patched with a patch from upstream.
> Unfortunately, upstream has not changed the version number.
> Therefore, the patch level has been added to the release. I don't
> know if this is in
Hi!
On Feb 5, 2008 6:49 AM, Morten Kjeldgaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There is no new tarball. There's only a patch file on upstream's web
> site that can be applied to the "old" tarball. I've wrapped that into
> a dpatch, so it is necessary to mark that in the version number I
> think. Vers
On 05/02/2008, at 16.37, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote:
So we have:
3.0.1 > 3.0+p1 > 3.0
There won't be problems if using 3.0+p1, for example.
Agreed? :-)
Heh, not quite actually... :-)
The way I've done it is apply upstreams patches via the dpatch system
to the old tarball. When the pack
Hi!
On Feb 6, 2008 4:23 PM, Morten Kjeldgaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 05/02/2008, at 16.37, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote:
> > Agreed? :-)
>
> Heh, not quite actually... :-)
That's good ;-)
> The way I've done it is apply upstreams patches via the dpatch system
> to the old tarball. When t
On Wed, 6 Feb 2008, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote:
I keep my "old tarball + patch = 3.0-1, new tarball = 3.0+p1-1" :-)
But lets see what the other members of the list have to say, right?
IMHO both things (old tarball + patch or new renamed tarball without
patch) would work - I'd call it a person
Hi!
On Feb 6, 2008 6:08 PM, Andreas Tille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Feb 2008, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote:
>
> > I keep my "old tarball + patch = 3.0-1, new tarball = 3.0+p1-1" :-)
> > But lets see what the other members of the list have to say, right?
>
> IMHO both things (old tarbal
On 06/02/2008, at 20.19, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote:
You need to use 3.0+p1 only if you use the new tarball.
With the old one the version will be 3.0 only.
Of course! It makes absolutely sense! 3.0 it is! I applied the patch
from your mail yesterday. Committed to svn.
Cheers,
Morten
--
Hi!
On Feb 6, 2008 9:06 PM, Morten Kjeldgaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 06/02/2008, at 20.19, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote:
>
> > You need to use 3.0+p1 only if you use the new tarball.
> > With the old one the version will be 3.0 only.
>
> Of course! It makes absolutely sense! 3.0 it is! I a
Hi!
On Feb 6, 2008 11:12 PM, Morten Kjeldgaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The patch file applies without problems to tarball 883bd...etc... so
> that is the one we should build against. I simply wrapped the
> patchfile "patch_15Jan2008.mustang" with a dpatch header and called
> it 01-upstream.dp
Nelson wrote a short while ago:
There is only one detail: the upstream patch is wrong. It was diffed
wrongly ("diff new old" instead "diff old new").
You can verify by diffing the old tarball against the new one and
comparing to http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~arun/mustang/
patch_15Jan2008.mustang
Th
Nelson wrote:
But even with this, I think that it's wrong.
Applying patch_15Jan2008.mustang will change the version on line 390
of src/CmdLineParser_2.cpp from "MUSTANG v.3 Command Line error!\n" to
"MUSTANG vO.2 Command Line error!\n"
The same thing on line 142 of src/superpose_on_core_2.cpp (
12 matches
Mail list logo
