At 10:36 PM 12/9/2001 -0600, Jerry Kreps wrote:
> > Free-gratis is good for people who ``can't afford'' a Bible
>
>I am curious as to who cannot afford a Bible but can afford a
>computer? It seems to me that one of the Sword's (plus Bible modules
>& Bibletime) biggest advantages is that it can b
On Tuesday 11 December 2001 11:24, Chris wrote:
> Leon Brooks wrote:
>> On Monday 10 December 2001 12:50, Mike Dougherty wrote:
>>> I actually love the fact that Java is so strongly typed.
>> Oddly enough, the JVM isn't strongly typed, and Python is actually a much
>> better match for it. (-:
>>
> Did go as far as to compile with KDevelop, or just edit?
Since compiling involves just a make call, you can use KDevelop to compile
sword, too.
Martin
On Tue, 11 Dec 2001, Jerry Hastings wrote:
> Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 00:48:37 -0700
> From: Jerry Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> Leon Brooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [sword-devel] GNU and OS ideologies and indu
On Monday 10 December 2001 20:43, Bobby Nations wrote:
> What are the following classes intended to be used for? I can't
> find where they're being used anywhere.
>
> org.crosswire.utils.HTTPUtiles
> SwordMod.Verify
> SwordMod.zip
>
> Also, the sword.DisplayConf file has a bunch of paths hard cod
On Tuesday 11 December 2001 01:48, Jerry Hastings wrote:
[snip]
> And we don't buy and sell indulgences. Or do we?
> It has been said, by one of the pioneers of making free
> Bible etexts and study etexts, that the granting and accepting of
> permissions in the Church, for money or gratis, is a
On Tuesday 11 December 2001 06:52, Martin Gruner wrote:
> > Did go as far as to compile with KDevelop, or just edit?
>
> Since compiling involves just a make call, you can use KDevelop to
> compile sword, too.
>
> Martin
I had done that, that's why I asked. But, I fired the make in the
root of
On 10 Dec 2001 at 3:40, Chris Little sent forth the message:
> All we need to do is rebuild these two texts, which I will do as soon as
> I have finished merging ICU 2.0 updates (a much larger task that I had
> thought it would be) and fixing Diaspora. I was considering updating
> Smith anyway,
> I had done that, that's why I asked. But, I fired the make in the
> root of the tree and ended up with a 19MB libsword.a file, which was
> interesting, if not useless :)
> My question was poorly phrased. What I was intending to ask was if
> you used KDevelop on a regular basis to do your
On Tuesday 11 December 2001 10:07, Martin Gruner wrote:
> > I had done that, that's why I asked. But, I fired the make in
> > the root of the tree and ended up with a 19MB libsword.a file,
> > which was interesting, if not useless :)
> > My question was poorly phrased. What I was intending
> Talking of which, will sword be able to use stock ICU 2.0 or are there
> still specific bits
> you need to add. If so is there anything we can do to split those off
into
> a separate
> library?
It looks like there is some hope that we can ship just those portions of
data that we need in additio
In looking at the code in swconfig.cpp it appears as though the the
Save() method iterates though all the sections saving their properties
to a single file. However, when I look in the .conf files in
/mods.d/ they only have a single configuration entry per
file. So which is correct, writing one fi
At 08:15 AM 12/11/2001 -0600, Jerry Kreps wrote:
>I am not sure I follow you on this aksing payment of license
>fees in exchange for permission to use copyrighted material is the
>same as granting permission to commit sin without fear of God's
>retribution?
If I was asked this question out o
On Tuesday 11 December 2001 12:01, Jerry Hastings wrote:
> At 08:15 AM 12/11/2001 -0600, Jerry Kreps wrote:
> >I am not sure I follow you on this aksing payment of license
> >fees in exchange for permission to use copyrighted material is the
> >same as granting permission to commit sin withou
> In looking at the code in swconfig.cpp it appears as though the the
> Save() method iterates though all the sections saving their properties
> to a single file.
Yes. This is correct. swconfig works agains a single .conf file,
theoretically. That's is goal. You can .augment the swconfig with
>
>
>>Would you care to expand on that?
>>
>
>Have you followed the link?
>
Yes. Did I miss something?
At 02:58 PM 12/11/2001 -0600, you wrote:
>On Tuesday 11 December 2001 12:01, Jerry Hastings wrote:
>
>Jerry The Older (assuming that you are not older than 60!)
In that case I am Jerry The Younger.
17 matches
Mail list logo
