On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 4:52 AM, Dan Horák d...@danny.cz wrote:
yes, I am, taking for review now
Ok, now that you've approved it I need your RPM Fusion account name to
add as a co-maintainer :)
Thanks,
Richard
Richard Shaw píše v Po 19. 12. 2011 v 12:27 -0600:
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 4:52 AM, Dan Horák d...@danny.cz wrote:
yes, I am, taking for review now
Ok, now that you've approved it I need your RPM Fusion account name to
add as a co-maintainer :)
My account is sharkcz. And thanks for the
Richard Shaw píše v St 07. 12. 2011 v 15:22 -0600:
Dan,
Are you still interested in reviewing this package?
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2054
Version 0.8.0 is about to be released which includes patches I got
upstreamed. (Yay for for packages that build with zero
Dan,
Are you still interested in reviewing this package?
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2054
Version 0.8.0 is about to be released which includes patches I got
upstreamed. (Yay for for packages that build with zero patches!)
Thanks,
Richard
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Richard Shaw wrote:
Long story short, I figured it out by hacking together some cmake
config changes. Although, a debian guy on the oce-dev list thinks my
changes are wrong... All I know is there's no more libraries
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
I'm also not sure whether those scripts you change to be executable should
really be executable. Generally, the best practices are that scripts should
be marked executable if and only if they have a valid #! line on
I decided it was close enough to submit. Any issues can now be brought
up in the review:
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2054
Thanks!
Richard
Richard Shaw wrote:
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
I'm also not sure whether those scripts you change to be executable
should really be executable. Generally, the best practices are that
scripts should be marked executable if and only if they have a valid #!
line on
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Richard Shaw wrote:
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
I'm also not sure whether those scripts you change to be executable
should really be executable. Generally, the best practices are that
Richard Shaw wrote:
Long story short, I figured it out by hacking together some cmake
config changes. Although, a debian guy on the oce-dev list thinks my
changes are wrong... All I know is there's no more libraries or
executables not able to find their dependent libraries, so it works
for
Ok, update...
After getting it building nicely I starting checking on functionality,
not that there's much I can do yet, so I tried using the DRAWEXE
program and it failed to run. Looking into it a bit I discovered it
had some rpath issues with the private libraries and the DRAWEXE
executable.
Richard Shaw píše v Po 14. 11. 2011 v 16:09 -0600:
Dan,
I'm cleaning up the spec file getting it ready for submission. Are you
interested in reviewing and co-maintaining OCE rather than OCC?
Sure, I am interested. Do you know if there is a clean relation between
OCC releases (and thus API)
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 4:01 AM, Dan Horák d...@danny.cz wrote:
Richard Shaw píše v Po 14. 11. 2011 v 16:09 -0600:
Dan,
I'm cleaning up the spec file getting it ready for submission. Are you
interested in reviewing and co-maintaining OCE rather than OCC?
Sure, I am interested. Do you know
Dan,
I'm cleaning up the spec file getting it ready for submission. Are you
interested in reviewing and co-maintaining OCE rather than OCC?
Thanks,
Richard
I just thought I'd let everyone know that I've got OCE building and
installing well. Upstream has been very helpful in making tweaks since
they previously didn't support multi-lib linux. I think I'll have a
package worth submitting pretty soon.
Richard
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 9:06 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Richard Shaw wrote:
Is there any major difference between OCC and OCE (community edition)
that you know of?
I guess it's a fork because upstream wouldn't accept community patches (also
a bad sign, next to the
Well, I have to say, I'm trying to package OCE just to see what the
differences are and I'm not even done with my first build, but I like
it.
First, it uses cmake for building exclusively, it also doesn't have as
many BuildRequires:, and it's over 75% complete compiling on my first
attempt with
Quick question...
Is there any major difference between OCC and OCE (community edition)
that you know of?
Currently, due to the OpenCASCADE license, it will have to go in
non-free in RPM Fusion. I checked github for OCE and it seems to have
the same license, so what's the point? If it had a more
Richard Shaw wrote:
Is there any major difference between OCC and OCE (community edition)
that you know of?
I guess it's a fork because upstream wouldn't accept community patches (also
a bad sign, next to the license). Unfortunately, the community cannot change
upstream's license, only
Richard Shaw píše v So 05. 11. 2011 v 09:03 -0500:
I finally got it to build!
that's great news
I had to go through the debian *.install files to clean up all the
%files sections as there were a lot of libraries removed and a couple
added.
Let me know if you're still interested.
yes, I
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 2:59 AM, Dan Horák d...@danny.cz wrote:
What remains is who should submit it for review? You skills are
definitely high enough for being the owner. I can help as reviewer and
co-maintainer. Would it work for you?
I guess I can sign up for that :) I don't think I maintain
Richard Shaw píše v Út 01. 11. 2011 v 08:57 -0500:
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Dan Horák d...@danny.cz wrote:
Richard Shaw píše v Po 31. 10. 2011 v 16:16 -0500:
I'm taking a shot a building FreeCAD since I'm a CAD jockey in my day
job and a good free CAD solution would be neat.
It
On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 6:00 AM, Dan Horák d...@danny.cz wrote:
Richard Shaw píše v Út 01. 11. 2011 v 08:57 -0500:
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Dan Horák d...@danny.cz wrote:
Richard Shaw píše v Po 31. 10. 2011 v 16:16 -0500:
I'm taking a shot a building FreeCAD since I'm a CAD jockey in
Richard Shaw píše v Čt 03. 11. 2011 v 07:46 -0500:
On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 6:00 AM, Dan Horák d...@danny.cz wrote:
Richard Shaw píše v Út 01. 11. 2011 v 08:57 -0500:
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Dan Horák d...@danny.cz wrote:
Richard Shaw píše v Po 31. 10. 2011 v 16:16 -0500:
I'm
On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 8:12 AM, Dan Horák d...@danny.cz wrote:
I have used the upstream source archive, while the Debian folks drop a
lot of stuff from it (see
http://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/main/o/opencascade/). I think the main
difference against 6.3.0 is in the size of documentation
Just to give you an update. I've ALMOST got it building. I hit a bug
in 6.5.1 missing an #include and ran into an issue that I'm not sure
why it didn't break things before. I ended up having to add
--with-freetype=... because it wasn't getting detected properly (if at
all).
Additionally I had to
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 8:40 AM, Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Dan Horák d...@danny.cz wrote:
Richard Shaw píše v Po 31. 10. 2011 v 16:16 -0500:
I'm taking a shot a building FreeCAD since I'm a CAD jockey in my day
job and a good free CAD solution
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Dan Horák d...@danny.cz wrote:
Richard Shaw píše v Po 31. 10. 2011 v 16:16 -0500:
I'm taking a shot a building FreeCAD since I'm a CAD jockey in my day
job and a good free CAD solution would be neat.
It has OpenCascade as a major dependency, which uses their
I'm taking a shot a building FreeCAD since I'm a CAD jockey in my day
job and a good free CAD solution would be neat.
It has OpenCascade as a major dependency, which uses their own
license[1]. They claim it's LGPL-like. Would this have to go in free
or non-free?
Thanks,
Richard
[1]
Richard Shaw píše v Po 31. 10. 2011 v 16:16 -0500:
I'm taking a shot a building FreeCAD since I'm a CAD jockey in my day
job and a good free CAD solution would be neat.
It has OpenCascade as a major dependency, which uses their own
license[1]. They claim it's LGPL-like. Would this have to
30 matches
Mail list logo
