As i said i would, i edited kicad-install.sh to remove wxgtk3.0 and
instead I installed wxgtk2.8 and then ran kicad-install.sh
--install-or-update
it seems to have worked. I have not tried to make anything yet, but
eeschema and pcbnew open just fine... then i went looking for cvpcb...
2014-10-19 9:20 GMT+02:00 Jake j...@spaz.org:
As i said i would, i edited kicad-install.sh to remove wxgtk3.0 and instead
I installed wxgtk2.8 and then ran kicad-install.sh --install-or-update
it seems to have worked. I have not tried to make anything yet, but
eeschema and pcbnew open just
Hi Adam
I have just tested your wx trusty backports. I removed all wx stuff,
added your repo, then ran the kicad-install.sh script. It works.
But I wonder why you only package wxwidgets 3.0.1 and not 3.0.2 while
you are at it. Is that because utopic is only packaging 3.0.1? (I
still fail to
Hi folks,
1) Jake, right now KiCad is in a transition and Real Soon Now things will
be added that won't work on wxgtk2.8, and I personally would not trust my
circuit boards to a KiCad built from latest releases on wxgtk2.8.
Please remember that the older releases work just as well as they used
I've been going through our source files and adding our copyright
license to files that do not have them. I'm using the log to determine
the rightful copyright owner but I'm not sure that they are 100%
accurate. If you have found any incorrect information, please send me a
patch and I will make
In the past we have used the repo commit number as the stable version
number. I'm not sure this is the best idea as there can be overlapping
commit numbers in separate branches. I would like to propose using
something that we can clearly identify as a release version to prevent
confusion due to
On 10/19/2014 5:47 PM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
I've been going through our source files and adding our copyright
license to files that do not have them. I'm using the log to determine
the rightful copyright owner but I'm not sure that they are 100%
accurate. If you have found any incorrect
I have no objections. Using the triplet is the usual way and has some
minor advantages over a serial numer, in that it it easier to see if
big changes has been made, if the number is given as such. Personally
I don't mind the serial numbering scheme although it can be confusing
when close to the
Here’s my thoughts from an outsiders perspective.
Using proper version numbers is definitely the right way to go. Using commit
numbers is a horrible way to version a project in my opinion. Overlapping
numbers aside, the commit numbers are arbitrary and have no meaning with
respect to the
From a not-really-developer point of view, I do want to at least recommend
the user of year-based release schemes, similar to how Ubuntu or MATLAB, as
opposed to the more traditional triplet style numbering schemes. From
what I've read here KiCad isn't going to be doing more than a couple of
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Wayne Stambaugh stambau...@verizon.net
wrote:
In the past we have used the repo commit number as the stable version
number. I'm not sure this is the best idea as there can be overlapping
commit numbers in separate branches. I would like to propose using
2014-10-20 7:19 GMT+02:00 Cirilo Bernardo cirilo.berna...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Wayne Stambaugh stambau...@verizon.net
wrote:
In the past we have used the repo commit number as the stable version
number. I'm not sure this is the best idea as there can be overlapping
12 matches
Mail list logo
