** Changed in: gtksourceview
Importance: Unknown => Medium
--
New .lang file for DocBook
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/60755
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Desktop Bugs, which is a bug assignee.
--
desktop-bugs mailing list
desktop-bugs@lists.ubuntu.c
gtksourceview2 (1.90.4-0ubuntu1) gutsy; urgency=low
.
* New upstream version:
- Many improvements to all the lang files
- Many minor API tweaks
- Misc bugfixes
- Updated translations
* debian/control.in:
- updated the Breaks version on gedit
* debian/rules:
The bug has been fixed upstream now
** Changed in: gtksourceview2 (Ubuntu)
Sourcepackagename: gtksourceview => gtksourceview2
Status: Confirmed => Fix Committed
--
New .lang file for DocBook
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/60755
You received this bug notification because you are a member
** Changed in: gtksourceview (upstream)
Status: Confirmed => Fix Released
--
New .lang file for DocBook
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/60755
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Desktop Bugs, which is a bug assignee.
--
desktop-bugs mailing list
desktop-
The docbook syntax highlighting (aka lang file) is included in gedit
2.18.1 which ships with the latest and greatest Gnome version.
I'm running foresight Linux version 1.2.1 (current) and docbook is an
option for syntax highlighting :) This bug can be closed.
--
New .lang file for DocBook
https
** Changed in: gtksourceview (upstream)
Status: Needs Info => Confirmed
--
New .lang file for DocBook
https://launchpad.net/bugs/60755
--
desktop-bugs mailing list
desktop-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/desktop-bugs
** Changed in: gtksourceview (upstream)
Status: Unconfirmed => Needs Info
--
New .lang file for DocBook
https://launchpad.net/bugs/60755
--
desktop-bugs mailing list
desktop-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/desktop-bugs
** Changed in: gtksourceview (upstream)
Status: Confirmed => Unconfirmed
--
New .lang file for DocBook
https://launchpad.net/bugs/60755
--
desktop-bugs mailing list
desktop-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/desktop-bugs
the correct number is #356275, I've updated the task
** Bug watch removed: GNOME Bug Tracker #352896
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=352896
** Bug watch added: GNOME Bug Tracker #356275
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=356275
--
New .lang file for DocBook
https://launch
is this really releated to gnome-bugs #352896 or has some just made a
typo when linking to upstream?
--
New .lang file for DocBook
https://launchpad.net/bugs/60755
--
desktop-bugs mailing list
desktop-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/desktop-bugs
I see your point -- the change from the xml highlighter to this one will feel
like a partial regression if a user has the more obscure tags in documents.
I've tried throwing a few large DocBook files at the second, complete, lang
file, and I'm not noticing a difference in speed. Perhaps the first
I don't know docbook enough to file comfortable approving a change
reducing the mode to a limited subset only, I'm letting other people
decide on that patch
--
New .lang file for DocBook
https://launchpad.net/bugs/60755
--
desktop-bugs mailing list
desktop-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ub
Sebastian: There are about 400 docbook tags defined in the spec. Most of them
are completely and utterly useless. If you don't believe me, ask Shaun McCance.
The subset I've used is hardly 'random', it's those that are used in GDP
documents.
Nonetheless, I've attached an alternative version of th
Ok, I'll add the remainder of the DocBook elements and upload the new
file to the upstream bug.
--
New .lang file for DocBook
https://launchpad.net/bugs/60755
--
desktop-bugs mailing list
desktop-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/desktop-bugs
no, my desktop is rather fast and I don't notice any real speed
difference. If we ship a docbook mode that should be a complete one
probably and random limit list of elements
--
New .lang file for DocBook
https://launchpad.net/bugs/60755
--
desktop-bugs mailing list
desktop-bugs@lists.ubuntu.co
It lists only a limited set, most of those that occur on GNOME docs.
I tried the full list (about 500 elements), but that made it slower.
With this set, it seems about the same speed to me.
Are you finding it slower than xml?
--
New .lang file for DocBook
https://launchpad.net/bugs/60755
--
de
Unsetting the edgy milestone. I'm not convinced by that file. At the
moment xml mode is used. How slow is it compared to your mode? Does you
file list all the docbook elements or is it just a limited set of them?
** Changed in: gtksourceview (Ubuntu)
Target: ubuntu-6.10 => None
--
New .la
** Changed in: gtksourceview (upstream)
Status: Unknown => Confirmed
--
New .lang file for DocBook
https://launchpad.net/bugs/60755
--
desktop-bugs mailing list
desktop-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/desktop-bugs
pbor mentioned it on IRC.
--
New .lang file for DocBook
https://launchpad.net/bugs/60755
--
desktop-bugs mailing list
desktop-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/desktop-bugs
Thanks for your bug. Where did you get that comment from upstream, there
is no mention of that on the bug you pointed
** Changed in: gedit (Ubuntu)
Sourcepackagename: gedit => gtksourceview
Importance: Untriaged => Wishlist
Assignee: (unassigned) => Ubuntu Desktop Bugs
Status: Uncon
20 matches
Mail list logo
