According to http://live.gnome.org/libchamplain/schedule they can be
expected to use Clutter 1.0 only from 3rd August, which is a day
before the Alpha freeze.
Cheers,
Debarshi
--
One reason that life is complex is that it has a real part and an
imaginary part.
-- Andrew Koenig
--
fedora-dev
On 07/12/2009 07:24 PM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
On Sat, 2009-07-11 at 15:22 +0200, Denis Leroy wrote:
On 07/11/2009 02:37 PM, Brian Pepple wrote:
I've been working on updating libchamplain to 0.3.3 in Rawhide, but
until it gets ported to the clutter-0.9 api (or we do a clutter-0.8
compat) it's a
On Sat, 2009-07-11 at 15:22 +0200, Denis Leroy wrote:
> On 07/11/2009 02:37 PM, Brian Pepple wrote:
> > I've been working on updating libchamplain to 0.3.3 in Rawhide, but
> > until it gets ported to the clutter-0.9 api (or we do a clutter-0.8
> > compat) it's a no go for now.
>
> I've been told t
On 07/11/2009 02:37 PM, Brian Pepple wrote:
I've been working on updating libchamplain to 0.3.3 in Rawhide, but
until it gets ported to the clutter-0.9 api (or we do a clutter-0.8
compat) it's a no go for now.
I've been told to expect clutter 1.0 real soon (tm) :-)
--
fedora-devel-list mailing
On Sat, 2009-07-11 at 18:25 +0530, Debarshi Ray wrote:
>
> So no one is affected by this change. On the other hand, 0.2.x is old
> and 0.3.x is where the fun is. So atleast some developers would
> benefit from it and libchamplain-0.3 would also get some testing
> leading to a better 0.4.x.
Since
> I've been working on updating libchamplain to 0.3.3 in Rawhide, but
> until it gets ported to the clutter-0.9 api (or we do a clutter-0.8
> compat) it's a no go for now.
That is also what I was waiting for.
> Regarding pushing this to F11, I really
> don't think we should, since the only real c
On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 08:37:49 -0400, Brian wrote:
> I've been working on updating libchamplain to 0.3.3 in Rawhide, but
> until it gets ported to the clutter-0.9 api (or we do a clutter-0.8
> compat) it's a no go for now. Regarding pushing this to F11, I really
> don't think we should, since the o
widget which was earlier separately released has
> been merged into the libchamplain tarball and we can put in a
> subpackage. Not to mention that potential Champlain users and
> developers will find this helpful.
>
> What do you think?
I've been working on updating libchamplai
libchamplain tarball and we can put in a
subpackage. Not to mention that potential Champlain users and
developers will find this helpful.
What do you think?
Happy hacking,
Debarshi
--
One reason that life is complex is that it has a real part and an
imaginary part.
-- Andrew Koenig
--
fedora-devel
