On September 14, 2016 11:37:46 PM GMT+03:00, Kei Kebreau <k...@openmailbox.org>
wrote:
>Leo Famulari <l...@famulari.name> writes:
>
>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 02:11:44PM -0400, Kei Kebreau wrote:
>>> Leo Famulari <l...@famulari.name> writes:
>>>
>>> > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 08:48:43PM +0000, Efraim Flashner wrote:
>>> >> On September 13, 2016 11:37:35 PM GMT+03:00, Kei Kebreau
>>> >> <k...@openmailbox.org> wrote:
>>> >> >In this case, should I leave qtscintilla-qt4 as a public package
>in
>>> >> >qt.scm
>>> >> >instead of maths.scm as Leo suggested?
>>> >>
>>> >> That's where I would leave it. You could also leave a note,
>saying
>>> >> that it was for octave, and if they switch to qt5 then we can get
>rid
>>> >> of it. We still have an old vte package I added for a terminal
>since
>>> >> all the bug reports around it haven't been cleared yet, and
>that's
>>> >> with the other versions of vte. --
>>> >
>>> > Sounds like a plan!
>>>
>>> Alright then! I have all three patches here. Tell me if I did
>anything
>>> funny. The order of application is "Add qscintilla, Add
>qscintilla-qt4,
>>> Enable Octave's Qt 4 GUI." :)
>>
>> The patches "Add qscintilla" and "Add qscintilla-qt4" both add both
>> packages.
>
>Fixed it.
If you switch ("qtbase" ,qtbase) to ("qt" ,qtbase) can you remove the whole
argument block from qscintilla?
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
