Re: First motif commits

On 25 March 2013 09:30, Paul Gevers wrote: > Are you sure? I believe the NEW queue is ONLY accessible to the > ftp-masters, as uploads might contain non-distributable material, and > the task of the ftp-masters is exactly to prevent that entering Debian. > I'm not sure exactly how it was done, b

Re: First motif commits

[Seems like the mail servers of Debian were out yesterday, sending again] Hi Graham, I have some questions in return. On 24-03-13 08:40, Graham Inggs wrote: > You wrote that you wouldn't upload 2.3.4-2 until 2.3.4-1 had been reviewed. > Is it possible to re-upload our current effort as 2.3.4-1 (

Re: First motif commits

Hi Paul You wrote that you wouldn't upload 2.3.4-2 until 2.3.4-1 had been reviewed. Is it possible to re-upload our current effort as 2.3.4-1 (with the appropriate changes to the changelog and libxm4.symbols)? It may then be possible to get Ubuntu to sync motif from Debian's NEW queue and still ma

Re: First motif commits

On 03/14/13 07:29, Graham Inggs wrote: > After asking that question I tried to do more reading up symbols, but > I found the information very vague, especially about (optional) > symbols. Out of interest, why are there so many other (optional) > symbols? How did you determine they were optional?

Re: First motif commits

On 13 March 2013 22:14, Paul Gevers wrote: > On 03/12/13 22:19, Graham Inggs wrote: > > Shouldn't the xprint related symbols have been commented out so we don't > > get the #MISSING warnings? > > That is fine. I thought I had done that. > After asking that question I tried to do more reading up

Re: First motif commits

On 03/13/13 09:46, Graham Inggs wrote: > I've cleaned up some things, added copyright info for > custom_mwm_badge.png and updated the changelog. Good. Are you sure you own the complete copyright of that file? I.e. didn't somebody else have the original copyright? > Maybe ac_find_xft.m4 should be

Re: First motif commits

I've cleaned up some things, added copyright info for custom_mwm_badge.png and updated the changelog. As noted in 14-fix_ac_find_xft.patch, we can probably eventually drop the build-depends on libfreetype6-dev and libxrender-dev as they only seem to be used in the tests in ac_find_xft.m4. Although

Re: First motif commits

Paul, if you think my recent changes to: 05-multiarch-specialcase-libdir-X11.patch 13-fix_hardcoded_x11rgb_path.patch and 14-fix_ac_find_xft.patch are sane, then I'll send those patches upstream.

Re: First motif commits

I've been looking at the motif packaging for Fedora 19 [1]. I see they also renamed their openmotif package to motif. The only changes we don't have now are in the man pages relating to relocated files. There are still many references to X11R6. Regarding my patch 14: Including ft2build.h seems to

Re: First motif commits

I committed some changes and updated the changelog. I am not done yet though, I still want to have a good look at the Red Hat package and see if there is anything that will be useful. I can already see that we can probably get rid of the system.mwmrc symlink. I also want to investigate building

Re: First motif commits

On 25-02-13 09:38, Graham Inggs wrote: > It seems other distributions, e.g. Fedora are also switching to DSO > linking [2]. > It's probably worth combining my patch along with Ubuntu's > 0003_fix_ftbfs_binutils-gold.patch [3] and pushing it upstream. Sounds good. >> Additionally, I was wondering

Re: First motif commits

On 24/02/2013 21:51, Paul Gevers wrote: 1. FTBFS on Ubuntu Raring: I think the following page holds the answer: http://wiki.debian.org/ToolChain/DSOLinking I already had a look at that page when I was creating the symbols. Indeed a lot of good info there. I think the change in Raring happened

Re: First motif commits

On 24-02-13 07:43, Graham Inggs wrote: > Recent changes (19 February) > > Hi, I just wanted to clear up a few things regarding the recent changes > I committed. Good. I probably would have asked about 2 specifically. 1. FTBFS on Ubuntu Raring: > I'd like to rename (sorry) the patch and come up

Re: First motif commits

Recent changes (19 February) Hi, I just wanted to clear up a few things regarding the recent changes I committed. 1. FTBFS on Ubuntu Raring: I had recently upgraded a test machine to Raring for another project and decided to try building motif on it. I encountered numerous error similar to the f

Re: First motif commits

On 17 February 2013 09:56, Paul Gevers wrote: > Do you really care for the numbers in front? I usually find them > annoying, especially in the future, when some patches might get dropped > because they are fixed and others not, do you then rename again? This > tends to make reading history more d

Re: First motif commits

The last few commits were the result of some testing against builds in my PPA: installing libmotif-dev and libmotif-dev:i386 installing libmotif4-dbg and libmotif4-dbg:i386 upgrading from 2.3.3 with all motif packages installed, including libmotif4 and libmotif4:i386

Re: First motif commits

On 16-02-13 17:19, Graham Inggs wrote: > Stefano agreed with you about multiple -dev packages being overkill. I > did go ahead though, with splitting uil into its own package and marking > it multiarch: foreign, it could be used for multiarch cross-compiling. Ok, fine. > I decided to rename your

Re: First motif commits

On 7 February 2013 08:53, Paul Gevers wrote: > On 07-02-13 07:03, Graham Inggs wrote: > > The only other thing I can think of is splitting libmotif-dev into > > libxm4-dev, libmrm4-dev, libuil4-dev > > Don't you think this is a little overkill? Not that I have a strong > objection, but do we real

Re: First motif commits

On 07-02-13 07:03, Graham Inggs wrote: > On 6 February 2013 22:07, Paul Gevers > wrote: > >> I think that if we have the split of -common, it is time to upload >> the package to experimental, to see if the ftp-masters can let the >> new package into main. We can then als

Re: First motif commits

On 6 February 2013 22:07, Paul Gevers wrote: > I think that if we have the split of -common, it is time to upload the > package to experimental, to see if the ftp-masters can let the new > package into main. We can then also start to ask dependent package to > try out building against motif inste

Re: First motif commits

On 05-02-13 19:06, Graham Inggs wrote: > I thought I had made it clear I was going to work on splitting > libmotif4, but no harm done. Sorry, slight misunderstanding. I thought it was your proposal. As I had time and hadn't seen any progress, I decided to try some of that work. Maybe the symbols

Re: First motif commits

On 5 February 2013 09:13, Paul Gevers wrote: > But you forgot to push... Lets agree that we either tell the other that > we are working on something, or just push (soon). > I thought I had made it clear I was going to work on splitting libmotif4, but no harm done. Again I have study commitments

Re: First motif commits

On 04-02-13 22:41, Graham Inggs wrote: > On 3 February 2013 23:34, Paul Gevers > wrote: > > > Not perfect yet, but I did some of the work on the split (bed time now > though). Pushed to the repo. > > > Ah, I actually did this on Thursday and Friday last week,

Re: First motif commits

On 3 February 2013 23:34, Paul Gevers wrote: > > Not perfect yet, but I did some of the work on the split (bed time now > though). Pushed to the repo. > Ah, I actually did this on Thursday and Friday last week, although I went as far as making a libmotif-common as well. > Does this also count

Re: First motif commits

On 01-02-13 08:31, Paul Gevers wrote: > On 31-01-13 21:11, Graham Inggs wrote: >> Actually, it looks like we should ditch libmotif4 and name the separate >> packages libXm4, libUil4 and libMrm4. > > Agree. Not perfect yet, but I did some of the work on the split (bed time now though). Pushed to t

Re: First motif commits

On 31-01-13 21:11, Graham Inggs wrote: > Actually, it looks like we should ditch libmotif4 and name the separate > packages libXm4, libUil4 and libMrm4. Agree. > On 31 January 2013 21:41, Graham Inggs > wrote: > > I've had a look at incorporating > d/patches/

Re: First motif commits

Actually, it looks like we should ditch libmotif4 and name the separate packages libXm4, libUil4 and libMrm4. On 31 January 2013 21:41, Graham Inggs wrote: > I've had a look at incorporating > d/patches/05-multiarch-specialcase-libdir-X11.patch into configure.ac as > a build option, and was th

Re: First motif commits

I've had a look at incorporating d/patches/05-multiarch-specialcase-libdir-X11.patch into configure.ac as a build option, and was thinking that perhaps now is the time to move these platform independent files, as Sergio suggested, from /usr/lib/X11/bindings to /usr/share/X11/bindings and into a sep

Re: First motif commits

On 21 January 2013 22:39, Paul Gevers wrote: > > Ok, let's try 3 and see where that takes us. I'm not keen on 2 because > > there are still proprietary applications being used that need libXm.so.3 > > and libXm.so.4. > I have still not found a single application that uses any of the Motif's XmP

Re: First motif commits

On 21-01-13 20:54, Graham Inggs wrote: > If you want. Do you want to start a new thread there? Just continue. > I still have the source code for every Debian package that depends on > libmotif-dev and lesstif2-dev on my PC, so I ran 'grep -i > XmPrintPopupPDM -l -r *' for each of the six missing