Perfect, thanks to both of you!
Ludo’.
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 09:11:57AM +0100, Federico Beffa wrote:
> One question that occurred me: do all patch files belong in
> gnu-system.am? If that's the case I have to add the two
> 'gobject-introspection' patches that I added to that file.
Yes, they need to be added, to become part of the dis
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 3:26 AM, Mark H Weaver wrote:
> I went ahead and merged this to master.
Thanks!
One question that occurred me: do all patch files belong in
gnu-system.am? If that's the case I have to add the two
'gobject-introspection' patches that I added to that file.
Regards,
Fede
Mark H Weaver writes:
> Federico Beffa writes:
>> I think that the wip-gobject-introspection branch is ready for
>> integration into master.
>
> Sounds good to me. Ludovic?
I went ahead and merged this to master.
Mark
Federico Beffa writes:
> I think that the wip-gobject-introspection branch is ready for
> integration into master.
Sounds good to me. Ludovic?
Mark
I think that the wip-gobject-introspection branch is ready for
integration into master.
WDYT?
Fede
On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 7:03 PM, Federico Beffa wrote:
> After rebasing the branch I've re-built xorg-server locally and seen
> the same test failure that occurred on hydra. I thought: "Good, now I
> have a way to investigate" and rebuilt with "--keep-failed" and ...
> the test passed!
> I then re
On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 7:57 PM, Federico Beffa wrote:
> I've also noticed that xorg-server failed to pass a test on hydra. I'm
> surprised because on my x86_64 machine everything goes smooth. Maybe
> the rebase will help as I see that master has a newer xorg-server
> version.
After rebasing the
On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Federico Beffa wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 6:32 PM, Mark H Weaver wrote:
>>>> At this point, it would be good to rebase (not merge) the
>>>> 'wip-gobject-introspection' branch on current master. Presently, the
On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 10:38 PM, Mark H Weaver wrote:
> Federico Beffa writes:
>
>> On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 6:32 PM, Mark H Weaver wrote:
>>> At this point, it would be good to rebase (not merge) the
>>> 'wip-gobject-introspection' branch on current mas
Mark H Weaver skribis:
> You're right to be wary of rebasing public branches, but I think it's
> okay with short-lived experimental branches like this. If it turns out
> that someone else has done work on it, the situation is easily remedied.
Agreed. There’s the unwritten rule inherited from G
Federico Beffa writes:
> On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 6:32 PM, Mark H Weaver wrote:
>> At this point, it would be good to rebase (not merge) the
>> 'wip-gobject-introspection' branch on current master. Presently, the
>> branch is based on master before core-up
On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 6:32 PM, Mark H Weaver wrote:
> At this point, it would be good to rebase (not merge) the
> 'wip-gobject-introspection' branch on current master. Presently, the
> branch is based on master before core-updates was merged, which means a
> considerably
Hi Federico,
Thanks for your work on 'wip-gobject-introspection'.
At this point, it would be good to rebase (not merge) the
'wip-gobject-introspection' branch on current master. Presently, the
branch is based on master before core-updates was merged, which means a
conside
Federico Beffa skribis:
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 9:51 PM, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> Given that core-updates will soon be fully built (hopefully within 24h)
>> and ready to be merged, I would prefer to wait until that is done, and
>> then rebase wip-gobject-introspection o
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 9:51 PM, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Given that core-updates will soon be fully built (hopefully within 24h)
> and ready to be merged, I would prefer to wait until that is done, and
> then rebase wip-gobject-introspection on it and get it built.
>
> How
y to be merged, I would prefer to wait until that is done, and
then rebase wip-gobject-introspection on it and get it built.
How does that sound?
Thanks,
Ludo’.
Hi,
I've built python-matplotlib with the patched gobject-introspection
and it appears to have achieved the desired goal: LD_LIBRARY_PATH is
not required anymore at run time.
To achieve that I updated gtk+ and atk. The version currently in
master of those packages failed with an error which looke
18 matches
Mail list logo
