Re: [sword-devel] SWORD 1.7.0 final stretch

works as it should only docs differ because of the revision in their path: $ diff -u <(conary showcs sword-1.6.2+r2825.ccs --ls|sort) <(conary showcs sword-1.6.2+r2820.ccs --ls|sort) --- /dev/fd/63 2013-06-20 08:14:57.784287767 +0200 +++ /dev/fd/62 2013-06-20 08:14:57.784287767 +0200 @@ -204,27 +20

Re: [sword-devel] cmake python bindings user location

On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 7:18 PM, Ben wrote: > On 06/19/2013 10:00 AM, Greg Hellings wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 6:14 AM, Ben > > wrote: >> >> On 06/16/2013 11:55 PM, Greg Hellings wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 9:22 PM, >

Re: [sword-devel] cmake python bindings user location

On 06/19/2013 10:00 AM, Greg Hellings wrote: On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 6:14 AM, Ben mailto:crick...@gmail.com>> wrote: On 06/16/2013 11:55 PM, Greg Hellings wrote: On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 9:22 PM, mailto:crick...@gmail.com>

Re: [sword-devel] Rahlfs LXX v11n (was Re: Current SVN)

On 6/19/2013 6:56 AM, DM Smith wrote: I'd like more info on the LXX v11n. As I need to modify JSword for it. If I'm following, Rahlfs has separate books for some OT books? The question is whether we have them separate in the v11n or aliases? Rahlfs' LXX is a critical edition, so in the case of

Re: [sword-devel] SWORD 1.7.0 final stretch

I believe today's commit lands all of the outstanding issues I have. It introduces enhanced functionality for CMake installs where the user does not want to install to ../lib and ../include. For those, in mirroring the behavior of autotools, the options LIBDIR= and INCLUDEDIR= are now available whe

Re: [sword-devel] SWORD 1.7.0 final stretch

On 6/19/2013 1:45 AM, Troy A. Griffitts wrote: Anything else? Let's push this to completion. I need your help. I wouldn't mind getting something in place to render the attribute included by the OSISEnum filter through the OSISXHTML filter. But I can foresee some pushback since that attribute

Re: [sword-devel] cmake python bindings user location

On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 6:14 AM, Ben wrote: > On 06/16/2013 11:55 PM, Greg Hellings wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 9:22 PM, > > wrote: >> >> Hey Greg, >> >> I'm building the python bindings with cmake 2.6.4. I'm trying to >> specify a user loca

Re: [sword-devel] SWORD 1.7.0 final stretch

On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 7:17 AM, Mark Trompell wrote: > I would still like to have some feedback on attached patch to be able > to use -DLIB_SUFFIX=64 to make make install install to /lib64. > Hardcoding lib is not good anyway, even if there might be better > solutions than the one in the patch. B

[sword-devel] Rahlfs LXX v11n (was Re: Current SVN)

I'd like more info on the LXX v11n. As I need to modify JSword for it. If I'm following, Rahlfs has separate books for some OT books? The question is whether we have them separate in the v11n or aliases? Does this implementation have any bearing on what is known to be deuterocanonical? That is,

Re: [sword-devel] Current SVN

On 6/13/2013 2:58 PM, Troy A. Griffitts wrote: Have projects had a chance to test against the latest SVN HEAD? I believe I still have a patch from Greg to find and we still have something outstanding for Peter to fix. Is anything else outstanding? I've had success building on Win32 in MSVC and

Re: [sword-devel] SWORD 1.7.0 final stretch

I would still like to have some feedback on attached patch to be able to use -DLIB_SUFFIX=64 to make make install install to /lib64. Hardcoding lib is not good anyway, even if there might be better solutions than the one in the patch. But at least the provided one doesn't break existing buildscript

Re: [sword-devel] SWORD 1.7.0 final stretch

As long as we follow the advice to have subsequent releases that fix bugs and minor details, I don't see any reason to wait. But I haven't had time to test the new KJV and ESV with it. I'll add my voice to a long list requesting branching for the release. Greg has volunteered to manage such. I

Re: [sword-devel] SWORD 1.7.0 final stretch

Hi Troy, I'm worried about a number of things relating to titles, but these worries are all focused on module build tools. i.e. How well the output from usfm2osis.py matches what osis2mod expects. Until this sleuthing is completed, and my evidence is presented to the right audience, I would not

Re: [sword-devel] Service Temporarily Unavailable (CrossWire Tracker)

Ignore that - I can access the tracker again. Sorry for the distraction. David -- View this message in context: http://sword-dev.350566.n4.nabble.com/Service-Temporarily-Unavailable-CrossWire-Tracker-tp4652589p4652590.html Sent from the SWORD Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _

[sword-devel] Service Temporarily Unavailable (CrossWire Tracker)

I was in the middle of editing a comment in the tracker, and just hit this: *Service Temporarily Unavailable* The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to maintenance downtime or capacity problems. Please try again later. Apache/2.2.15 (Red Hat) Server at www.crosswire.org Por

[sword-devel] SWORD 1.7.0 final stretch

Things have been quiet for a bit. I have all the patches in that are on my todo list. Anyone else have outstanding issues? Now is the time to speak up. Chris, any feedback on my Ralfs suggestion? Peter, still binding troubles? Can you give me your exact commands executed and I'll try them here.