On 28 March 2011 02:15, Ahmad Samir wrote:
>>> And do you have any objective compelling reason to include qt3-devel,
>>> other than an arbitrary reason based on personal preferences ?
>>
>> For the same reason that you added Qt3: LSB
>>
>> If we want to be LSB compliant, it seems reasonable to pro
On 27 March 2011 23:02, Olivier Blin wrote:
> nicolas vigier writes:
>
>> And do you have any objective compelling reason to include qt3-devel,
>> other than an arbitrary reason based on personal preferences ?
>
> For the same reason that you added Qt3: LSB
>
> If we want to be LSB compliant, it
nicolas vigier writes:
> And do you have any objective compelling reason to include qt3-devel,
> other than an arbitrary reason based on personal preferences ?
For the same reason that you added Qt3: LSB
If we want to be LSB compliant, it seems reasonable to provide the tools
to build LSB-compl
Romain d'Alverny a écrit :
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 11:38, Tux99 wrote:
Also is there an official rule somewhere that specifies:
"because we don't want to have software built on a deprecated library in
the repository"
or is this simply an arbitrary rule that restricts freedoms of users and
ot
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 02:10:54PM +0100, Tux99 wrote:
>
>
> Quote: Robert Xu wrote on Fri, 25 March 2011 13:53
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Based on all this conversation here, it is clear that we have gotten
> > off topic.
> > My suggestion would be to
Op vrijdag 25 maart 2011 10:39:28 schreef Tux99:
> Quote: xi wrote on Fri, 25 March 2011 10:32
>
> > As always, please don't drop too fast the packages that you find
> > useless. There are still some users like me who may use QT3.
> >
> > I still use some "not so common" applications (eg tools fo
Op vrijdag 25 maart 2011 12:43:28 schreef Colin Guthrie:
> 'Twas brillig, and Tux99 at 25/03/11 11:14 did gyre and gimble:
[...]
> "Freedom" is in no way restricted.
[...]
totally off topic here, but:
Freedom is always restricted, if there is unrestricted freedom, other people
will not be free a
2011/3/25 xi :
> Hoyt Duff wrote:
>>
>> I agree, there is no 'compelling reason' not to offer it. The people
>> doing the work just don't want to because enabling it means they have
>> to support it. _Since Mageia doesn't need it for anything_, it makes no
>> sense to enable it; it consumes scarce
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011, xi wrote:
>
> Hi again,
>
> You are wrong, there are software which need qt3-devel, but they have been
> removed from Mageia!
> I have just taken a look at Mageia "missing package" list, and QCad will be
> removed because it is built against QT3 (quoting: "qcad: stewb -
> n
Hoyt Duff wrote:
On 3/25/11, Tux99 wrote:
Quote: yves wrote on Fri, 25 March 2011 09:42
Hi,
QT4 is released since 2005, about... 6 years ?
So, why is it usefull to maintain a package that "becomes" depreciated
?
You are missing the point.
On 25 March 2011 13:27, John Balcaen wrote:
> The only problem we faced is that we're not agree about packaging qt3-devel
Totally off topic: are you french :-) ?
'Twas brillig, and Tux99 at 25/03/11 13:42 did gyre and gimble:
>
>
> Quote: Colin Guthrie wrote on Fri, 25 March 2011 14:36
>
>> It was Donald Knuth who said "Premature optimization is the root of
>> all
>> evil", and the same can be said of "Speculative Packaging" IMO!
>
> Actually you just m
Quote: Colin Guthrie wrote on Fri, 25 March 2011 14:36
> It was Donald Knuth who said "Premature optimization is the root of
> all
> evil", and the same can be said of "Speculative Packaging" IMO!
Actually you just made my point here, excluding qt3-devel out of 'neatness'
is quite clearly prema
'Twas brillig, and Tux99 at 25/03/11 12:10 did gyre and gimble:
>
>
> Quote: Colin Guthrie wrote on Fri, 25 March 2011 12:43
>
>> "Freedom" is in no way restricted. I see absolutely no problem with
>> compiling a qt3 package yourself with the -devel package enabled if
>> you
>> want to use it.
Am 25.03.2011 14:06, schrieb Tux99:
At this point I don't think there is any chance that TDE ever goes
into the
Mageia repos, given the attitudes I have faced here.
I don't see why.
Just let me summarize the whole discussion from my point of view:
There are (at least) 2 users how would be ha
On 3/25/11, Tux99 wrote:
>
>
> Quote: yves wrote on Fri, 25 March 2011 09:42
>
>> Hi,
>> QT4 is released since 2005, about... 6 years ?
>> So, why is it usefull to maintain a package that "becomes" depreciated
>> ?
>
> You are missing the point.
Quote: Robert Xu wrote on Fri, 25 March 2011 13:53
> Hi,
>
> Based on all this conversation here, it is clear that we have gotten
> off topic.
> My suggestion would be to make a separate repository for Trinity.
> Beware, we also updated Qt to
Quote: John Balcaen wrote on Fri, 25 March 2011 13:27
> > As I said earlier in this thread I have of course already rebuilt
> > the qt3
> > package on my box and started working on the TDE packages (thanks
> > to work
> > done by Tim for Mandriva it's far easier for me now).
> >
> So we can now
Hi,
Based on all this conversation here, it is clear that we have gotten off topic.
My suggestion would be to make a separate repository for Trinity.
Beware, we also updated Qt to version 3.3.8c (just a few minor
changes, no idea if bugs remain) while we finish the porting to Qt4.
--
later, Robe
2011/3/25 Tux99
>
>
> Quote: Balcaen John wrote on Fri, 25 March 2011 12:30
> >
> > As as already said earlier, if you want to compile TDE, you can also
> > compile
> > qt3 with devel enable because you 'll need to *patch* qt3 to be able to
> >
> > compile TDE >=3.5.12 cf
> > http://www.trinityde
Quote: Colin Guthrie wrote on Fri, 25 March 2011 12:43
> "Freedom" is in no way restricted. I see absolutely no problem with
> compiling a qt3 package yourself with the -devel package enabled if
> you
> want to use it.
But isn't one of the reasons for participating in a community distro,
wanti
nicolas vigier wrote:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011, Tux99 wrote:
Quote: nicolas vigier wrote on Fri, 25 March 2011 12:08
Because we want to be sure that nothing is built on this library.
So you are arbitrarily making life harder to people like Xavier and
myself.
And you want to arbitrarily make li
Quote: tux99 wrote on Fri, 25 March 2011 12:47
> Quote: Balcaen John wrote on Fri, 25 March 2011 12:30
> >
> > As as already said earlier, if you want to compile TDE, you can
> > also compile
> > qt3 with devel enable because you 'll need to *
Quote: Balcaen John wrote on Fri, 25 March 2011 12:30
>
> As as already said earlier, if you want to compile TDE, you can also
> compile
> qt3 with devel enable because you 'll need to *patch* qt3 to be able to
>
> compile TDE >=3.5.12 cf
> http://www.trinitydesktop.org/wiki/bin/view/Developer
'Twas brillig, and Tux99 at 25/03/11 11:14 did gyre and gimble:
> My concerns here are exactly because I'm getting the feeling that freedom
> is being unnecessarily restricted in Mageia.
This is a very, very subjective statement, and I am rather concerned
that it's being used as some kind of lever
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 12:14, Tux99 wrote:
> Quote: rdalverny wrote on Fri, 25 March 2011 11:56
>> A choice is arbitrary, always. It always says no
>> to something. Implying that this would "restrict freedoms of users"
>> would be laughable at best, offensive at worst, especially since this
>> is
On Friday 25 March 2011 08:18:38, Tux99 wrote:
> Quote: nicolas vigier wrote on Fri, 25 March 2011 12:08
>
> > Because we want to be sure that nothing is built on this library.
>
> So you are arbitrarily making life harder to people like Xavier and
> myself.
If you think so...
As as already said
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011, Tux99 wrote:
>
>
> Quote: nicolas vigier wrote on Fri, 25 March 2011 12:08
>
> > Because we want to be sure that nothing is built on this library.
>
> So you are arbitrarily making life harder to people like Xavier and
> myself.
And you want to arbitrarily make life a lot
Quote: nicolas vigier wrote on Fri, 25 March 2011 12:08
> Because we want to be sure that nothing is built on this library.
So you are arbitrarily making life harder to people like Xavier and
myself.
> And you still didn't explain why you want it, if it's not to build
> software based on it.
Quote: rdalverny wrote on Fri, 25 March 2011 11:56
> A choice is arbitrary, always. It always says no
> to something. Implying that this would "restrict freedoms of users"
> would be laughable at best, offensive at worst, especially since this
> is an open source project.
You seem to be confusi
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011, Tux99 wrote:
>
>
> Quote: nicolas vigier wrote on Fri, 25 March 2011 11:50
>
> > > Having a qt3-devel packages does not automatically imply having
> > > packages
> > > based on it in the official repos.
> >
> > Why do you want to have a qt3-devel package on the official re
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 11:33, Tux99 wrote:
> Quote: rdalverny wrote on Fri, 25 March 2011 10:53
>> If you can't work here by that, or if you are not happy with how
>> things go here, you are free to discuss this openly with members of
>> the council or of the board to sort it out.
>
> Is there a
Quote: nicolas vigier wrote on Fri, 25 March 2011 11:50
> > Having a qt3-devel packages does not automatically imply having
> > packages
> > based on it in the official repos.
>
> Why do you want to have a qt3-devel package on the official repos, if
> it's not to have other packages based on it
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 11:38, Tux99 wrote:
> Also is there an official rule somewhere that specifies:
>
> "because we don't want to have software built on a deprecated library in
> the repository"
>
> or is this simply an arbitrary rule that restricts freedoms of users and
> other packagers?
Not
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011, Tux99 wrote:
>
>
> Quote: nicolas vigier wrote on Fri, 25 March 2011 11:20
>
> > The COMPELLING reason has already been said. It's because we don't
> > want
> > to have software built on a deprecated library in the repository.
>
> That is not a compelling reason as Xavier'
Quote: nicolas vigier wrote on Fri, 25 March 2011 11:20
> The COMPELLING reason has already been said. It's because we don't
> want
> to have software built on a deprecated library in the repository.
That is not a compelling reason as Xavier's post showed for example.
Having a qt3-devel packag
Quote: rdalverny wrote on Fri, 25 March 2011 10:53
> You can't force a maintainer to do something you want and that she
> judges not right for her set of packages.
We seem to be having a communication issue. Where did I force a maintainer
to do anything?
I asked if there is any COMPELLING reas
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011, Tux99 wrote:
>
>
> Quote: rdalverny wrote on Fri, 25 March 2011 10:30
>
> > Wait. What you seem to forget is that this is not only about rights
> > but too about duties. The "freedom" above comes from people that take
> > their time to craft and package things, so they are
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:37, Tux99 wrote:
> Quote: rdalverny wrote on Fri, 25 March 2011 10:30
>
>> Wait. What you seem to forget is that this is not only about rights
>> but too about duties. The "freedom" above comes from people that take
>> their time to craft and package things, so they are
Quote: xi wrote on Fri, 25 March 2011 10:32
> As always, please don't drop too fast the packages that you find
> useless. There are still some users like me who may use QT3.
>
> I still use some "not so common" applications (eg tools for electronic)
>
> which needs QT3 and it is always much m
Quote: rdalverny wrote on Fri, 25 March 2011 10:30
> Wait. What you seem to forget is that this is not only about rights
> but too about duties. The "freedom" above comes from people that take
> their time to craft and package things, so they are verily in their
> right and duty to make choices
y...@antredugeek.fr wrote:
Hi,
QT4 is released since 2005, about... 6 years ?
So, why is it usefull to maintain a package that "becomes" depreciated
?
Imho, Mageia had better to wait for a trinity-qt4-desktop...
++
yg
Hi,
Last realease of QT3 is _not_ 6 years old but about 3 years old ...
Quote: Oliver Burger wrote on Fri, 25 March 2011 10:21
> A community distro is first and formost about community. Every time one
> of your
> ideas, suggestions, questions is answered by anyone with a "no" you
> begin to
> blame "a few of the core members", no matter how many people said no
> a
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:09, Tux99 wrote:
> You are missing the point. QT3 is already part of Mageia and it wasn't me
> who added it. All I'm asking is if there is any compelling reason not to
> enable qt3-devel in the existing qt3 source package that is part of Mageia.
Then ask the qt3 maintai
Am Freitag 25 März 2011, 10:09:57 schrieb Tux99:
> What everyone here seems to forget is that a community distro should be
> first and foremost about FREEDOM. Freedom to let others enjoy their
> preferred software, not ARTIFICIAL RESTRICTIONS imposed by personal
> preferences or unnecessarily restr
Quote: yves wrote on Fri, 25 March 2011 09:42
> Hi,
> QT4 is released since 2005, about... 6 years ?
> So, why is it usefull to maintain a package that "becomes" depreciated
> ?
You are missing the point. QT3 is already part of Mageia and it w
Hi,
QT4 is released since 2005, about... 6 years ?
So, why is it usefull to maintain a package that "becomes" depreciated
?
Imho, Mageia had better to wait for a trinity-qt4-desktop...
++
yg
Quote: Dexter Morgan wrote on Fri, 25 March 2011 09:15
> > Is there any compelling reason why we cannot reenable qt3-devel in
> > the qt3
> > source package that is ALREADY part of Mageia?
> >
> > If not then I want to reenable it.
>
> Work on TDE on your side first, we won't reenable this old,
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 8:53 AM, Tux99 wrote:
>
>
> Ok, can we get back on topic?
>
> Is there any compelling reason why we cannot reenable qt3-devel in the qt3
> source package that is ALREADY part of Mageia?
>
> If not then I want to reenable it.
Work on TDE on your side first, we won't reenabl
Ok, can we get back on topic?
Is there any compelling reason why we cannot reenable qt3-devel in the qt3
source package that is ALREADY part of Mageia?
If not then I want to reenable it.
--
Mageia ML Forum Gateway: http://mageia.linuxtech.net/forum/
Op donderdag 24 maart 2011 22:09:50 schreef Dexter Morgan:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 10:04 PM, Maarten Vanraes
>
> wrote:
> > Op donderdag 24 maart 2011 20:55:47 schreef Ahmad Samir:
> >> On 24 March 2011 21:36, Maarten Vanraes
wrote:
> >> > Op donderdag 24 maart 2011 14:10:39 schreef Romain d'
Robert Xu a écrit :
On Mar 23, 2011, at 17:28, Dexter Morgan wrote:
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 10:19 PM, Olivier Blin wrote:
Dexter Morgan writes:
I certainly don't have the web space and bandwidth resources for a
repository and frankly I joined Mageia as a packager precisely because I
thou
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 10:04 PM, Maarten Vanraes
wrote:
> Op donderdag 24 maart 2011 20:55:47 schreef Ahmad Samir:
>> On 24 March 2011 21:36, Maarten Vanraes wrote:
>> > Op donderdag 24 maart 2011 14:10:39 schreef Romain d'Alverny:
>> >> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 09:13, Tux99 wrote:
>> >> > Like
Op donderdag 24 maart 2011 20:55:47 schreef Ahmad Samir:
> On 24 March 2011 21:36, Maarten Vanraes wrote:
> > Op donderdag 24 maart 2011 14:10:39 schreef Romain d'Alverny:
> >> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 09:13, Tux99 wrote:
> >> > Like I said before, KDE3.5 coexisted very well with KDE4 since 2009.1
On 24 March 2011 21:36, Maarten Vanraes wrote:
> Op donderdag 24 maart 2011 14:10:39 schreef Romain d'Alverny:
>> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 09:13, Tux99 wrote:
>> > Like I said before, KDE3.5 coexisted very well with KDE4 since 2009.1 on
>> > Mandriva and Trinity is even more so being developed wit
Op donderdag 24 maart 2011 16:22:15 schreef Ahmad Samir:
> On 24 March 2011 11:56, Olivier Blin wrote:
> > nicolas vigier writes:
> >> On Wed, 23 Mar 2011, Robert Xu wrote:
> >>> As I reiterate, Trinity does not interfere with KDE4 in any way, if
> >>> you keep /opt/kde3
> >>
> >> Are you sure ?
Op donderdag 24 maart 2011 14:10:39 schreef Romain d'Alverny:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 09:13, Tux99 wrote:
> > Like I said before, KDE3.5 coexisted very well with KDE4 since 2009.1 on
> > Mandriva and Trinity is even more so being developed with coexistence in
> > mind, so there shouldn't be any
On 24 March 2011 11:56, Olivier Blin wrote:
> nicolas vigier writes:
>
>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2011, Robert Xu wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> As I reiterate, Trinity does not interfere with KDE4 in any way, if
>>> you keep /opt/kde3
>>
>> Are you sure ?
>>
>> For libs installed in /opt/kde3/lib, rpm find-provides w
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 09:13, Tux99 wrote:
> Like I said before, KDE3.5 coexisted very well with KDE4 since 2009.1 on
> Mandriva and Trinity is even more so being developed with coexistence in
> mind, so there shouldn't be any unsolvable issues.
Maybe it did coexist well at a significant cost on
nicolas vigier writes:
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2011, Robert Xu wrote:
>
>>
>> As I reiterate, Trinity does not interfere with KDE4 in any way, if
>> you keep /opt/kde3
>
> Are you sure ?
>
> For libs installed in /opt/kde3/lib, rpm find-provides will add the
> provides for the libs on the packages. Whe
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011, Robert Xu wrote:
>
> As I reiterate, Trinity does not interfere with KDE4 in any way, if
> you keep /opt/kde3
Are you sure ?
For libs installed in /opt/kde3/lib, rpm find-provides will add the
provides for the libs on the packages. When an other package require
this library
Quote: Oliver Burger wrote on Thu, 24 March 2011 08:53
>
> Am Donnerstag 24 März 2011, 08:23:18 schrieb Tux99:
> > I think this thread is starting to derail from a simple technical
> > question
> > limted to a specific issue (reenabling qt-dev) to an ideological
> > argument
> > based greatly on
Am Donnerstag 24 März 2011, 08:23:18 schrieb Tux99:
> I think this thread is starting to derail from a simple technical question
> limted to a specific issue (reenabling qt-dev) to an ideological argument
> based greatly on fear and paranoia.
It is? I don't think so. Unless you think considerations
I think this thread is starting to derail from a simple technical question
limted to a specific issue (reenabling qt-dev) to an ideological argument
based greatly on fear and paranoia.
Adding TrinityDE to Mageia, like adding any bigger software, is a gradual
step by step process.
I don't think
Le mercredi 23 mars 2011 à 19:39 -0400, Robert Xu a écrit :
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 18:58, Ahmad Samir wrote:
> > If the latter, then I don't fancy adding the conflicts in each of the
> > various kde4 specs (having just removed them a few months ago, and
> > that took quite a lot of work), just
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 18:58, Ahmad Samir wrote:
> On 24 March 2011 00:48, Olivier Blin wrote:
>> Ahmad Samir writes:
>>
>>> We shouldn't under any circumstances add kde3 in the repos, fork or not.
>>>
>>> Users see a package in the repos and they expect it to be maintained,
>>> this will not b
On 24 March 2011 00:48, Olivier Blin wrote:
> Ahmad Samir writes:
>
>> We shouldn't under any circumstances add kde3 in the repos, fork or not.
>>
>> Users see a package in the repos and they expect it to be maintained,
>> this will not be the case, we can't support KDE4 and KDE3 at the same
>> t
Ahmad Samir writes:
> We shouldn't under any circumstances add kde3 in the repos, fork or not.
>
> Users see a package in the repos and they expect it to be maintained,
> this will not be the case, we can't support KDE4 and KDE3 at the same
> time. Past experience tells us this is a major hassle/
On 23 March 2011 09:49, Tux99 wrote:
>
>
> I noticed there is no qt-devel rpm in mageia.
>
> I looked into this further and noticed the following comment in the
> changelog of qt3:
>
> Revision 45543 - (view) (download) (annotate) - [select for diffs]
> Modified Mon Jan 31 23:32:27 2011 UTC (7 wee
On Wednesday 23 March 2011 18:29:09, Tux99 wrote:
[...]
> It goes without saying that I would first build everything locally and test
> it, I always do that with every package I work on.
Nice to hear ;o)
> But like I said, I think a separate/third party repo is a very bad idea,
> the whole point o
Le mercredi 23 mars 2011 à 17:30 -0400, Robert Xu a écrit :
> On Mar 23, 2011, at 17:28, Dexter Morgan wrote:
> > we will face too many pbs simple question:
> >
> > we provide k3b ( kde apps ) trinity provide k3b ( kde3 apps )
>
> Uh, no, k3b-trinity or k3b-kde3
And for configuration path, var
Robert Xu writes:
>> we provide k3b ( kde apps ) trinity provide k3b ( kde3 apps )
>
> Uh, no, k3b-trinity or k3b-kde3
Or use a prefix, which should makes easier to spot trinity packages,
like trinity-k3b
>> files are similar ( or named the same ), how users will distinguish
>
> No.. That's th
On Mar 23, 2011, at 17:28, Dexter Morgan wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 10:19 PM, Olivier Blin wrote:
>> Dexter Morgan writes:
>>
I certainly don't have the web space and bandwidth resources for a
repository and frankly I joined Mageia as a packager precisely because I
thought
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 10:19 PM, Olivier Blin wrote:
> Dexter Morgan writes:
>
>>> I certainly don't have the web space and bandwidth resources for a
>>> repository and frankly I joined Mageia as a packager precisely because I
>>> thought Mageia would finally make confusing and conflicting third
Quote: Balcaen John wrote on Wed, 23 March 2011 22:05
> But as i said before (like others), you should first try to build it
> locally,
> check it's working, intergrate nicely for menu,kdm then we'll start
> thinking
> about providing an alternative repository.
It goes without saying that I
Dexter Morgan writes:
>> I certainly don't have the web space and bandwidth resources for a
>> repository and frankly I joined Mageia as a packager precisely because I
>> thought Mageia would finally make confusing and conflicting third party
>> repos (like Mandriva has) obsolete.
>>
>>
>> We can
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Robert Xu wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 23, 2011, at 16:24, Tux99 wrote:
>
>
> I certainly don't have the web space and bandwidth resources for a
> repository and frankly I joined Mageia as a packager precisely because I
> thought Mageia would finally make confusing and co
On Mar 23, 2011, at 16:24, Tux99 wrote:
I certainly don't have the web space and bandwidth resources for a
repository and frankly I joined Mageia as a packager precisely because I
thought Mageia would finally make confusing and conflicting third party
repos (like Mandriva has) obsolete.
We can
On Wednesday 23 March 2011 17:25:25, Tux99 wrote:
[...]
> I certainly don't have the web space and bandwidth resources for a
> repository and frankly I joined Mageia as a packager precisely because I
> thought Mageia would finally make confusing and conflicting third party
> repos (like Mandriva ha
Quote: Anne nicolas wrote on Wed, 23 March 2011 20:47
>
> As explained by some guys before, we do not want to have both KDE3 and
> 4 in repository. This has been a big pain to make them live together
> for some months (even if it looks "easy") and it has been a pain to
> clean repository.
I know
2011/3/23 Maarten Vanraes :
> Op woensdag 23 maart 2011 19:22:08 schreef nicolas vigier:
>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2011, Robert Xu wrote:
>> > And I hate to double post, but I do know that the %configure_kde3
>> > macro should point to /opt/kde3... :)
>>
>> So that means that all KDE applications will be t
Op woensdag 23 maart 2011 19:22:08 schreef nicolas vigier:
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2011, Robert Xu wrote:
> > And I hate to double post, but I do know that the %configure_kde3
> > macro should point to /opt/kde3... :)
>
> So that means that all KDE applications will be twice on the repository,
> one for
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 14:50, Tux99 wrote:
>
>
> Where do you have the Fedora and openSUSE spec files?
> Those could be useful as reference.
>
> I will PM you eventually but first I have to have a close look at
> everything, SVN write access would be premature for now.
>
Right now, I'm slowly mo
Quote: nicolas vigier wrote on Wed, 23 March 2011 19:22
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2011, Robert Xu wrote:
>
> >
> > And I hate to double post, but I do know that the %configure_kde3
> > macro should point to /opt/kde3... :)
>
> So that means that all
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011, Robert Xu wrote:
>
> And I hate to double post, but I do know that the %configure_kde3
> macro should point to /opt/kde3... :)
So that means that all KDE applications will be twice on the repository,
one for KDE4, and one for TDE ? I think that can be confusing for users.
P
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 13:46, Dexter Morgan wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Tux99 wrote:
>>
>>
>> Quote: Robert Xu wrote on Wed, 23 March 2011 16:09
>>
>>> Trinity Qt4 support is experimental, you can see it in
>>> SVN.trinitydesktop.org
>>
>> I'm aware of that, that's why I said we ne
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 13:46, Dexter Morgan wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Tux99 wrote:
>>
>>
>> Quote: Robert Xu wrote on Wed, 23 March 2011 16:09
>>
>>> Trinity Qt4 support is experimental, you can see it in
>>> SVN.trinitydesktop.org
>>
>> I'm aware of that, that's why I said we ne
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Tux99 wrote:
>
>
> Quote: Robert Xu wrote on Wed, 23 March 2011 16:09
>
>> Trinity Qt4 support is experimental, you can see it in
>> SVN.trinitydesktop.org
>
> I'm aware of that, that's why I said we need qt3-devel re-enabled in the
> QT3 package.
> I don't want to
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:08, Tux99 wrote:
> I'm aware of the autoconf issue but I found a workaround [1] and I have
> managed to build a libtqtinterface RPM so far with the workaround.
I recommend seeing this message:
http://trinity-users.pearsoncomputing.net/?0::593
>
> Are you a TrinityDE de
Quote: Robert Xu wrote on Wed, 23 March 2011 16:09
> Trinity Qt4 support is experimental, you can see it in
> SVN.trinitydesktop.org
I'm aware of that, that's why I said we need qt3-devel re-enabled in the
QT3 package.
I don't want to build the current version with experimental QT4 support.
>
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 10:01, John wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 13:35:05 +0100 (CET)
> Tux99 wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Quote: tux99 wrote on Wed, 23 March 2011 13:18
>> >
>> > Version 3.5.12 was just released a couple of weeks ago:
>> > http://www.trinitydesktop.org/releases.php
>>
>> Actually I confused
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 13:35:05 +0100 (CET)
Tux99 wrote:
>
>
> Quote: tux99 wrote on Wed, 23 March 2011 13:18
> >
> > Version 3.5.12 was just released a couple of weeks ago:
> > http://www.trinitydesktop.org/releases.php
>
> Actually I confused the date :) the current version was released last
>
Quote: tux99 wrote on Wed, 23 March 2011 13:18
>
> Version 3.5.12 was just released a couple of weeks ago:
> http://www.trinitydesktop.org/releases.php
Actually I confused the date :) the current version was released last
October.
Anyway that doesn't change the fact that QT4 support is still
Quote: Balcaen John wrote on Wed, 23 March 2011 11:37
> > Can we please reenable the qt3-devel package as it's
> > required to build the TrinityDE (www.trinitydesktop.org)
> Did you rebuild qt3 locally & the whole trinityDE with sucess ?
Yes I just rebuilt qt3 locally with -devel with the inten
On Wednesday 23 March 2011 07:37:12, Balcaen John wrote:
> On Wednesday 23 March 2011 04:49:21, Tux99 wrote:
> > I noticed there is no qt-devel rpm in mageia.
>
> [...]
> If i'm not wrong qt3 was simply wrongly imported & pushed.
> Also no apps seems to requires it at all (especially when there's
On Wednesday 23 March 2011 04:49:21, Tux99 wrote:
> I noticed there is no qt-devel rpm in mageia.
[...]
If i'm not wrong qt3 was simply wrongly imported & pushed.
Also no apps seems to requires it at all (especially when there's no -devel to
link against it)
I would suggest to drop it at all in fa
I noticed there is no qt-devel rpm in mageia.
I looked into this further and noticed the following comment in the
changelog of qt3:
Revision 45543 - (view) (download) (annotate) - [select for diffs]
Modified Mon Jan 31 23:32:27 2011 UTC (7 weeks, 1 day ago) by stewb
Original Path: cauldron/qt3
97 matches
Mail list logo
