Le 23/06/2012 01:01, RICHARD WALKER a écrit :
> Quick comments (before I re-build and test)
>
> 2) IDE depends on gb.form.stock. Seems logical but will have no
> impact on distributed app which uses only the runtime + components. I
> presume this measure is to make the IDE requirement explicit and
Thank you Benoît. Revision 4853 built and installed. The rpm of my
application now correctly reflects the selected requirement for
gb.form.stock. That would have avoided the problem my brother
reported.
regards,
Richard
---
Quick comments (before I re-build and test)
2) IDE depends on gb.form.stock. Seems logical but will have no impact
on distributed app which uses only the runtime + components. I presume
this measure is to make the IDE requirement explicit and stop us
relying on the stealthy dynamic load-on-demand.
Le 22/06/2012 22:38, RICHARD WALKER a écrit :
> Hmm, some of those footballers are pretty good actors...
>
> Richard
>
> PS I will hold off on the bug report. As I understand it there is
> EITHER a need to implement an rpm install dependency for gb.form on
> gb.form.stock, OR to investigate why the
Hmm, some of those footballers are pretty good actors...
Richard
PS I will hold off on the bug report. As I understand it there is
EITHER a need to implement an rpm install dependency for gb.form on
gb.form.stock, OR to investigate why the loader reports an error
instead of allowing a blank icon.
Le 22/06/2012 22:12, RICHARD WALKER a écrit :
> Good evening Benoît, so you're not watching the football either:-)
>
> This is something I should report to Mageia packagers, yes?
>
> R
>
Not yet. Technically gb.form.stock is not mandatory, so you should not
get an error, but a default void icon.
Good evening Benoît, so you're not watching the football either:-)
This is something I should report to Mageia packagers, yes?
R
--
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's se
Le 22/06/2012 20:15, RICHARD WALKER a écrit :
> Third attempt at posting this, apologies if the first two really did get out>
>
> I have been investigating a similar problem with a package I build for
> limited distribution (so far only my brother uses this little
> program).
>
> I too have found t
Third attempt at posting this, apologies if the first two really did get out>
I have been investigating a similar problem with a package I build for
limited distribution (so far only my brother uses this little
program).
I too have found that the Gambas-created package (rpm in my case) does
not i
Hi Sundar,
Nothing is wrong with the package I believe. It is that you are using
dpkg -i to install the package. This will never install the dependencies
as dpkg does not do that (at least not on my systems (Ubuntu, Debian and
Lubuntu))
sudo apt-get -f install after having done dpkg-i, might solv
Any help please. I still not able to figure out where i miss out.
From: "sundar j"
Sent: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 20:11:42
To:
Subject: [Gambas-user] Package creation failed to include gambas dependencies.
Some how i managed to complete my
11 matches
Mail list logo