On Wed, 2014-08-06 at 06:47 +0100, Anthony F McInerney wrote:
https://phab.enlightenment.org/T1489
Why is that bug locked/private?
The two main comments were Could you work on the patch to use the lib
if the lib is found. This would require debian to provide a lz4.pc
(and give it to
On 6 August 2014 06:56, Paul Wise p...@debian.org wrote:
https://phab.enlightenment.org/T1489
Why is that bug locked/private?
I do believe you might actually need a phab account to see it.
http://i.imgur.com/7NcKL7r.jpg here's a screenshot instead
The best thing you can do for now is
Hi Pabs,
On 5 August 2014 06:02, Paul Wise p...@debian.org wrote:
The attached files (completely untested) should do something like that
and fix other issues.
Yup, the use-lz4.patch was great, i merged your rules/control with mine
(that i'd created from your previous mail) and everything
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 2:16 AM, Anthony F McInerney wrote:
Yup, the use-lz4.patch was great, i merged your rules/control with mine
(that i'd created from your previous mail) and everything appears to be
fine. I've pushed the patch (and the others) upstream, hopefully something
will be done.
If you could get upstream to delete src/bin/lz4 from their VCS and
tarballs that would be good too.
https://phab.enlightenment.org/T1489
The two main comments were Could you work on the patch to use the lib if
the lib is found. This would require debian to provide a lz4.pc (and give
it to
Hi pabs,
On 1 August 2014 05:36, Paul Wise p...@debian.org wrote:
Add liblz4-dev to the Build-Depends. In addition you will need to patch
src/bin/Makefile.am and src/bin/termptysave.c so that the system version
is used. Since you are patching the autotools build system you will need
to
On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Anthony F McInerney wrote:
The code references lz4.c while lz4-dev supplies only lz4.h.
Is there another way i can pull in the lz4 source package?
Or am i just confused? :)
I think you are confused.
The package should link against the lz4 shared library
Hi pabs,
Also, src/bin/lz4 looks like an embedded code copy. Please ensure that
the package uses the system version of the lz4 library and that
src/bin/lz4 is removed in debian/rules build before ./configure is
run, so that the code copy is never used. For bonus points, convince
upstream to
On Thu, 2014-07-31 at 19:16 +0100, Anthony F McInerney wrote:
if i need to remove src/bin/lz4 folder with debian/rules does that
imply that i need to use get-orig-source to repack, and also do i then
need to use d/copyright to exclude-files?
You should not need to repack the orig.tar.gz, just
Control: owner -1 !
Hey bofh80,
* bofh80 afm...@gmail.com [2014-07-14 16:27:40 +0100]:
Thanks for the feedback, I've uploaded 0.6.1 with an extra depends.
I've checked in a vm without e17 installed this time to make sure it works
first.
If you'd be so kind as to check the new version and
Hi Nicolas
The eet file source issues, i ran a 'find' and couldn't see the files your
talking about, could you name one or two explicitly for me?
When i mentioned them, the terminology devs seemed to think they were
config files. (enlightenment has a thing about putting text into 'machine
code'
Heya,
* Anthony F McInerney afm...@gmail.com [2014-07-30 23:46:03 +0100]:
Hi Nicolas
The eet file source issues, i ran a 'find' and couldn't see the files your
talking about, could you name one or two explicitly for me?
The two files I was talking about are:
./src/bin/app_server_eet.c
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote:
* Anthony F McInerney afm...@gmail.com [2014-07-30 23:46:03 +0100]:
The eet file source issues, i ran a 'find' and couldn't see the files your
talking about, could you name one or two explicitly for me?
The two files I was talking
The new version appears to work for me.
Thanks very much for testing it again.
By the way, do you happen to know if terminology is supposed to replace
eterm, or are both going to live together?
They are certainly not the same thing, i'll simply put in the lead
enlightenment devs response
Thanks for the feedback, I've uploaded 0.6.1 with an extra depends.
I've checked in a vm without e17 installed this time to make sure it works
first.
If you'd be so kind as to check the new version and let me know?
http://mentors.debian.net/package/terminology
The respective dsc file can be
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 04:27:40PM +0100, bofh80 wrote:
Thanks for the feedback, I've uploaded 0.6.1 with an extra depends.
I've checked in a vm without e17 installed this time to make sure it works
first.
If you'd be so kind as to check the new version and let me know?
The new version
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package terminology
* Package name: terminology
Version : 0.6.0-1
Upstream Author : Carsten Haitzler ras...@rasterman.com
* URL :
On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 09:57:20AM +0100, Anthony F McInerney wrote:
* Package name: terminology
It fails to start, with the following output:
CRI20400:elementary elm_win.c:2858 _win_constructor() Software X11 engine
creation failed. Trying default.
ERR20400:elementary elm_win.c:2994
18 matches
Mail list logo
