LibOFX 0.9.3:
- Fix segfault on some files containing missing closing tags (bug
#2969817)
- Note to packagers: Upstream has moved to git at
git://libofx.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/libofx/libofx
--
Benoit Grégoire, ing., PMP, PSM
___
On Apr 13, 2011, at 9:00 AM, David Goodenough wrote:
> On Wednesday 13 April 2011, John Ralls wrote:
>> On Apr 13, 2011, at 8:48 AM, Joshua Moore wrote:
>>> I'd be happy to. Many of the problems don't look too difficult, but
>>> someone may need to make a decision about the markup language versi
On woensdag 13 april 2011, Phil Longstaff wrote:
> The win32 trunk build failed last night while trying to build goffice. If
> we've decided to replace the graphs with the javascript-based one, shall
> we just remove goffice and replace with the new graph engine?
>
I would consider it too early f
On Wednesday 13 April 2011, John Ralls wrote:
> On Apr 13, 2011, at 8:48 AM, Joshua Moore wrote:
> > I'd be happy to. Many of the problems don't look too difficult, but
> > someone may need to make a decision about the markup language version
> > that should be used. Right now, it looks like the
On Apr 13, 2011, at 8:48 AM, Joshua Moore wrote:
>
> I'd be happy to. Many of the problems don't look too difficult, but someone
> may need to make a decision about the markup language version that should be
> used. Right now, it looks like the intent is HTML 4.01 Transitional. Is
> there
I'd be happy to. Many of the problems don't look too difficult, but someone
may need to make a decision about the markup language version that should be
used. Right now, it looks like the intent is HTML 4.01 Transitional. Is there
any reason to move to something else?
Josh
On Apr 13, 2011, at 6:57 AM, Phil Longstaff wrote:
> If this is for trunk, I'd prefer that we *don't* just fix the current scheme
> code. We really need to decide what we plan to do with reports for 2.6. We
> have our current scheme reports. We have a few eguile reports. We've had a
> sug
The win32 trunk build failed last night while trying to build goffice. If
we've
decided to replace the graphs with the javascript-based one, shall we just
remove goffice and replace with the new graph engine?
Phil
-
I used to be a hypochondriac AND a kleptomaniac. So I took something
If this is for trunk, I'd prefer that we *don't* just fix the current scheme
code. We really need to decide what we plan to do with reports for 2.6. We
have our current scheme reports. We have a few eguile reports. We've had a
suggestion to use laml (http://www.cs.aau.dk/~normark/laml/) to
On Apr 13, 2011, at 5:04 AM, Frank H. Ellenberger wrote:
> Hey John,
>
> Am Montag, 11. April 2011 um 17:23:17 schrieb John Ralls:
>> We only need the generated HTML to display correctly in the embedded
>> WebKit, which AFAICT it does.
>
> No, we also offer to export the pages, where they will
"Christian Stimming (mobil)" writes:
> The macro you mentioned is for printf but not scanf - which is
> different. If glib has some macro for scanf, sure we should use it.
Yes, but these warnings are just PWARN messages, which is a printf..
-derek
> Christian
> --
> Sent from mobile.
>
>
>
> D
Hey John,
Am Montag, 11. April 2011 um 17:23:17 schrieb John Ralls:
> We only need the generated HTML to display correctly in the embedded
> WebKit, which AFAICT it does.
No, we also offer to export the pages, where they will be rendered by any
engine the user has at hand.
Frank
___
12 matches
Mail list logo
