Re: Implementing proper cost basis tracking for shares

Dave Peticolas writes: > Robert Graham Merkel writes: > > A while ago (check the mail archives), we had a discussion on > > share reporting, and specifically, calculating share cost basis. > > The upshot was that we need to track which parcel of shares a share > > sale comes from. With the

Re: Implementing proper cost basis tracking for shares

Robert Graham Merkel writes: > A while ago (check the mail archives), we had a discussion on > share reporting, and specifically, calculating share cost basis. > The upshot was that we need to track which parcel of shares a share > sale comes from. With the new file format and hash store now > a

RE: Implementing proper cost basis tracking for shares

Sorry for being obscure. I had thought you meant a new account for each parcel. > -Original Message- > From: Robert Graham Merkel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 11:16 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Implementing proper cost

RE: Implementing proper cost basis tracking for shares

Phillip Shelton writes: > Are you looking at a new account for each parcel of shares? > Sorry, I'm not quite following your comment. For my "alternative" solution to the "share related expense/income", each "share account" (each individual stock, not each parcel), you would need at least two a

RE: Implementing proper cost basis tracking for shares

Are you looking at a new account for each parcel of shares? > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Robert > Graham Merkel > Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 10:35 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Implementing proper cost basis tracking

Implementing proper cost basis tracking for shares

A while ago (check the mail archives), we had a discussion on share reporting, and specifically, calculating share cost basis. The upshot was that we need to track which parcel of shares a share sale comes from. With the new file format and hash store now available, it's time to think about doin

Re: gnucash bill

Herbert Thoma writes: > Hi! > > I just spent a little time playing with the gimp. > Enjoy! > That's cool! Nice work. dave ___ gnucash-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gnumatic.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel

Re: How many people are using guile 1.3 (not 1.3.4) and can't easily switch?

Richard -Gilligan- Uschold wrote: I'm using guile 1.3, only because the rpm I downloaded for 1.4.4 required it.  I thought it odd that it wasn't using a more recent version.  I'll upgrade to 1.4.7 to see if that solves the problem.   I downloaded gnucash-1.4.7-2mdk.i586.rpm and ir requires guile-

Peter Norton - I can't reach you...

[ Related to gnucash because Peter's trying to help with the guile 1.3 problem. ] There's either something wrong with your mail setup, or you're using one of the super-anal spamblockers. Either way, mail I'm sending you is bouncing. Some of the more agressive blockers block all time-warner c

Re: How many people are using guile 1.3 (not 1.3.4) and can't easily switch?

Dave Peticolas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The issue is that Redhat 6.x uses guile-1.3. That means if there are > any other programs which link to guile, upgrading to guile-1.3.4 will > be a pain because the library major version # changed and those other > programs will break. I don't know if

Re: How many people are using guile 1.3 (not 1.3.4) and can't easily switch?

Rob Browning writes: > Richard -Gilligan- Uschold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I'm using guile 1.3, only because the rpm I downloaded for 1.4.4 > > required it.  I thought it odd that it wasn't using a more recent > > version.  I'll upgrade to 1.4.7 to see if that solves the problem. > > I

Re: How many people are using guile 1.3 (not 1.3.4) and can't easily switch?

Richard -Gilligan- Uschold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm using guile 1.3, only because the rpm I downloaded for 1.4.4 > required it.  I thought it odd that it wasn't using a more recent > version.  I'll upgrade to 1.4.7 to see if that solves the problem. I seem to recall that there was some

Re: How many people are using guile 1.3 (not 1.3.4) and can't easily switch?

Rob Browning wrote: As far as I can tell, the latest version of g-wrap works fine with guile 1.3.4 and guile 1.4 on my system(s). Since it would be somewhat difficult/time-consuming for me to install guile-1.3 and add backward compatibility and test g-wrap, I'm trying to figure out if it would be

WARNING, DANGER, BEWARE - possibile death to your gnucash data!

Just to reiterate what Dave said, but in a little more dramatic fashion to hopefully catch everyone's attention. We're not kidding about the upcoming changes. After we add this upcoming big patch DO NOT USE UNSTABLE FOR ANY DATA YOU EVER WANT TO SEE AGAIN at least not for a while. Even *I'

How many people are using guile 1.3 (not 1.3.4) and can't easily switch?

As far as I can tell, the latest version of g-wrap works fine with guile 1.3.4 and guile 1.4 on my system(s). Since it would be somewhat difficult/time-consuming for me to install guile-1.3 and add backward compatibility and test g-wrap, I'm trying to figure out if it would be unreasonable to ju

gnucash bill

Hi! I just spent a little time playing with the gimp. Enjoy! Herbert. -- Herbert Thoma FhG-IIS A, Studio Department Am Weichselgarten3, 91058 Erlangen, Germany Phone: +49-9131-776-323 Fax: +49-9131-776-399 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] www: http://www.iis.fhg.de/ gnu_bill.gif