Re: http://sourceforge.net/projects/plucker/

David Starks-Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [...] Is it an intentional placeholder or forgotten or ... ? I don't think Sourceforge allows you to delete projects. You can check out any time you want, but you can never leave. ___ plucker-dev maili

CVS log message list?

I don't suppose there's a mailing list, like [EMAIL PROTECTED], that receives log messages for each CVS commit? Thanks, David ___ plucker-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-dev

http://sourceforge.net/projects/plucker/

Greetings, I came across and but there doesn't seem to be anything going on there. Is it an intentional placeholder or forgotten or ... ? Regards, David ___ plucker-dev maili

Re: patch to REQUIREMENTS file

I'm currently using .plkr as an extension for Plucker documents. Bill ___ plucker-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-dev

Re: patch to viewer/configure.in

Good with me. > We should also make the migration to AC_PREREQ(2.53) as well, as > mentioned last week or so, and deprecate our use of 2.13. > > > d. ___ plucker-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/p

Table Compression

Mike: You're more familiar with the uncompress code (and palm databases) than I, so, how about this plan for uncompressing (possibly nested) tables?? table.c calls Uncompress( tableRecord ); Uncompress creates a new record in the uncompress database, saves the record # and returns the handle

Re: Release plans?

---On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 16:08:14 +, Michael Nordström said > I have suggested a "release plan" to the other team members; as soon > as they have voiced their opinion about the plan it can be made > "official" ;-) > > Because I (by mistake) broke the 1.2 branch in CVS a few months ago > making

Re: patch to REQUIREMENTS file

On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, David A. Desrosiers wrote: > > The only solutions I see are > > > > 1. fix gcc so it is case sensitive w.r.t. locating include files. > > Impossible, given the underlying filesystem (Windows) Not true. When reading the file information you do get the filename in the 'na

Re: patch to REQUIREMENTS file

On Monday 24 Feb 03, David A. Desrosiers writes: > > > The only solutions I see are > > > > 1. fix gcc so it is case sensitive w.r.t. locating include files. > > Impossible, given the underlying filesystem (Windows) OK, never mind then. Thanks, David _

Re: patch to REQUIREMENTS file

> The only solutions I see are > > 1. fix gcc so it is case sensitive w.r.t. locating include files. Impossible, given the underlying filesystem (Windows) > 2. avoid modulo-case filename collisions between plucker/viewer/*.h >files and any SDK files. Right, each plucker-spec

Re: patch to REQUIREMENTS file

On Monday 24 Feb 03, Adam McDaniel writes: > I've used cygwin before at work, and have found generally when using > unix-ported apps they retain atleast some of their case-sensitivity. > It could just be a cpp issue. Indeed (cf. "find"), and I plan to investigate. > However, in terms of your orig

Re: Release plans?

On Mon, Feb 24, 2003, Laurens M. Fridael wrote: > What are the release plans for the standard, non-Hires Viewer? Is there > going to be a 1.2.x bugfix release (the category bug with memory cards comes > to mind) or is it going straight to 1.3? I have suggested a "release plan" to the other team me

Re: patch to REQUIREMENTS file

On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 03:47:43PM +, David Starks-Browning wrote: > (I've contributed to other projects where the opposite is asked. If > patches are independent, they are preferred to be reviewed & discussed > independently.) I would consider that to be true, but group them based upon the p

Re: patch to REQUIREMENTS file

On Monday 24 Feb 03, Adam McDaniel writes: > Having another set of eyes go through the docs is definatly helpful. > However I would say if you could group your patches into one big one, > it would definatly be easier for someone over here to review them. :) Fair enough. (I've contributed to other

Re: Release plans?

On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 12:51:20PM +0100, Laurens M. Fridael wrote: > What are the release plans for the standard, non-Hires Viewer? Is there > going to be a 1.2.x bugfix release (the category bug with memory cards comes > to mind) or is it going straight to 1.3? I don't know what the plans are fo

Re: patch to REQUIREMENTS file

On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 02:02:27PM +, Michael Nordström wrote: > I didn't "complain" about you reporting this; only that I have more > important issues to worry about (and that the docs usually are left > behind until a new version is about to be released.) Having another set of eyes go throug

Re: patch to REQUIREMENTS file

On Mon, Feb 24, 2003, David Starks-Browning wrote: > Just trying to help... I didn't "complain" about you reporting this; only that I have more important issues to worry about (and that the docs usually are left behind until a new version is about to be released.) /Mike _

Re: patch to viewer/configure.in

On Monday 24 Feb 03, David A. Desrosiers writes: > Stick with what works.. Do we really have users building Plucker in > Cygwin? Or do they just convert it over to CodeWarrior and build there? Once you decide what version of autoconf you need, just add AC_PREREQ(?.??) accordingly. Platforms

Re: patch to REQUIREMENTS file

> But that part of the REQUIREMENTS file is for "Palm OS viewer > development". It seems to me that it ought to match what's in CVS. I agree, and it should be updated when we make a release. d. ___ plucker-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: patch to REQUIREMENTS file

On Monday 24 Feb 03, Michael Nordström writes: > ... Anyway, the > code hasn't been released, yet, so I can't say I worry too much > about "bugs" in the docs. But that part of the REQUIREMENTS file is for "Palm OS viewer development". It seems to me that it ought to match what's in CVS. Just tr

Re: patch to viewer/configure.in

> The viewer will continue to use 2.13... I haven't seen any convincing > arguments to why 2.53 should be the required version to build the viewer. Well, there's the minor issue that 2.1x and 2.5x are _intentionally_ made incompatible (even 2.52 is purposely incompatible with 2.53) to for

Release plans?

Hi, What are the release plans for the standard, non-Hires Viewer? Is there going to be a 1.2.x bugfix release (the category bug with memory cards comes to mind) or is it going straight to 1.3? Thanks -Laurens --- http://jpluck.sourceforge.net/ JPluck - open-source Plucker document creation too

Re: patch to REQUIREMENTS file

On Sun, Feb 23, 2003, Adam McDaniel wrote: > Hey Mike, since it was you who mandated SDK5 as the minimum, I guess > you dropped the ball on making this change, eh :) Sure, blame me. Adam (a.k.a. Mr Everyone-is-running-PalmOS5-so-why-should-I-worry- about-keeping-the-hires-code-separated-from-the-

Re: patch to viewer/configure.in

On Sun, Feb 23, 2003, David A. Desrosiers wrote: > We should also make the migration to AC_PREREQ(2.53) as well, as > mentioned last week or so, and deprecate our use of 2.13. The viewer will continue to use 2.13... I haven't seen any convincing arguments to why 2.53 should be the required v