> Well, I would hope that we don't need to do grunt homework for the
> wxwidgets upstream. If developers are so stupid to adopt an unstable
> and unusable product for their programs, it is their bad choice
> not a problem of us.
As long as we ship software using broken libraries it _IS_ our prob
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 10:59:06AM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 04:03:56PM +0100, Loïc Minier wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 09, 2007, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> > > So what about that? 2.8 is around since almost 1 year, and this delay
> > > is not justifiable IMHO. T
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 10:52:47AM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> future 3.0 is definitively a per-program ones, it is not
> a duty of the library package.
s/package/packager/
--
Francesco P. Lovergine
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trou
On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 04:03:56PM +0100, Loïc Minier wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 09, 2007, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> > So what about that? 2.8 is around since almost 1 year, and this delay
> > is not justifiable IMHO. There are now tons of developers and
> > maintainers that need to build against 2
On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 07:51:31PM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>
> >
> > So what about that? 2.8 is around since almost 1 year, and this delay
> > is not justifiable IMHO. There are now tons of developers and
> > maintainers that need to build against 2.8, and I doubt a transition
> > plan from 2
>
> So what about that? 2.8 is around since almost 1 year, and this delay
> is not justifiable IMHO. There are now tons of developers and
> maintainers that need to build against 2.8, and I doubt a transition
> plan from 2.6 has sense due to API and behaviors changes. We have
> simply to cope wit
On Fri, Nov 09, 2007, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> So what about that? 2.8 is around since almost 1 year, and this delay
> is not justifiable IMHO. There are now tons of developers and
> maintainers that need to build against 2.8, and I doubt a transition
> plan from 2.6 has sense due to API and
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 09:00:00PM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 02:45:25AM +0200, Pierre THIERRY wrote:
> > Scribit Roberto C. Sánchez dies 04/10/2007 hora 18:13:
> > > > wxWidgets has been released a long time ago and we're still missing
> > > > it.
> > > Yes, though
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 02:45:25AM +0200, Pierre THIERRY wrote:
> Scribit Roberto C. Sánchez dies 04/10/2007 hora 18:13:
> > > wxWidgets has been released a long time ago and we're still missing
> > > it.
> > Yes, though for a good [1] reason.
>
> Sure, wxwidgets has numerous bugs, but is it that
Scribit Roberto C. Sánchez dies 04/10/2007 hora 18:13:
> > wxWidgets has been released a long time ago and we're still missing
> > it.
> Yes, though for a good [1] reason.
Sure, wxwidgets has numerous bugs, but is it that surprising for a
library package that much used? (i.e. would such a backlog
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 09:53:41PM +0200, "Adam Cécile (Le_Vert)" wrote:
> Hello developers,
>
> I'm writing you this mail to be sure everybody is aware of this issue
> and with the hope that someone will be interrested in fixing it ;)
>
Lots of people are aware. Just look at the bugs against th
11 matches
Mail list logo
