the xmlOutputBuffer and
xmlParserInputBuffer changes in libxml2 git head give problems I'm
ready to help out.
As I said I don't plan to make an official release with the changes
before September, so there is a bit of time to get this all cleaned up.
Daniel
--
Daniel Veillard
On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 02:27:31PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-08-06 at 15:05 +0800, Daniel Veillard wrote:
>
> > So I looked at this more closely. It happens that evolution-data-server
> > was using raw xmlOutputBuffer to serialize XML, and then accessing
>
On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 09:45:34PM -0400, Ray Strode wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 3:05 AM, Daniel Veillard wrote:
> > mistake done circa 98-99 IIRC and a bit late to fix ... The problem are
> > that those buffers were using int instead of size_t for various
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 02:37:52PM +0200, Stef Walter wrote:
> On 08/06/2012 09:05 AM, Daniel Veillard wrote:
> > Hi Colin,
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 04:59:29AM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> >> Hi Daniel,
> >>
> >> It looks like
>
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 09:34:14AM +0800, Daniel Veillard wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 02:37:52PM +0200, Stef Walter wrote:
[...]
> > Daniel, do you have a patch for gnome-online-accounts? It seems that its
> > build fails due to this commit:
> >
> > make[2]: Enteri
ME platform
because I think it comes with the OS and its updates are really OS related
not GNOME releases related. If that's the case for libxml++ too then this
makes sense, but I'm not sure it's true at this point.
Daniel
--
Red Hat Virtualization group http://redhat.com/virtualiza
On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 11:07:04AM +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 04:41 -0400, Daniel Veillard wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 10:24:57AM +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 2007-09-25 at 19:41 -0400, Hubert Figuiere wrote:
&g
e
kind of set of informations as the one on the libxslt side, is generated
in the same way, and doesn't seems to break jhbuild.
Is there any special rule applied within jhbuild on one side and not
another ? Couldn't that file be removed or ignored in case of CVS checkout
conflicts
On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 09:55:56AM +0800, James Henstridge wrote:
> Daniel Veillard wrote:
>
> > libxml2/include/libxml/xmlwin32version.h[.in] contains the same
> >kind of set of informations as the one on the libxslt side, is generated
> >in the same way, and doesn&
On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 08:56:11PM +0800, James Henstridge wrote:
> Daniel Veillard wrote:
>
> > now s/xslt/xml/g there is the exact same mechanism for libxml2, and
> >it never breaks, though libxml2 module ChangeLog is updated way more
> >frequently
> >than libxs
state.
I said I would fix this. I don't see why you're jumping on this a few days
later, maybe my post didn't make it to d-d-l (I'm not subscribed, I can't
stand the flames anymore). So please put back you gun in your holster, I'm
not a target, what I did was motivated,
ne to build Win32 within a CVS checkout'ed
tree done on Linux/Unix and modified locally due to a build.
If you're on case 3 I strongly suggest to CVS checkout separate trees for
your Win23/MSDev (or other exotic platform) build and for your Linux/Unix
builds.
Daniel
--
Dani
(authentication included) for all apps. you don't want app A
working with HTTP with authentication but not able to save with Webdav
while application be cannot authenticate but save to unprotected directories
on your webdav server. One or the other is a small deficiency, but both
behaviour
ed by the licences of our platform libraries.
Daniel
--
Daniel Veillard | Red Hat Desktop team http://redhat.com/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/
_
irmly depends on at this point) and I will
need to customize my tools.
Don't get me wrong, I think it's a good idea, but the process to make
sure it works for everybdy sounds really broken !
Daniel
--
Daniel Veillard | Red Hat http://redhat.com/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | libxml G
On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 01:18:00PM +0100, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-12-01 at 06:58 -0500, Daniel Veillard wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 07:03:50PM -0600, Federico Mena Quintero wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Some time ago we discussed adding a
16 matches
Mail list logo
