[Harbour] CHANGELOG: 2008-02-10 04:03 UTC+0100 Viktor Szakats (harbour.01 syenar.hu)

2008-02-09 Thread Szakáts Viktor
2008-02-10 04:03 UTC+0100 Viktor Szakats (harbour.01 syenar.hu) * common.mak * source/lang/Makefile + source/lang/msgbgmik.c + source/lang/msgbe866.c + source/lang/msgbewin.c + source/lang/msghr437.c + source/lang/msghrwin.c + source/lang/msgua866.c + source/lang/msguakoi

Re: [Harbour] 2008-02-04 09:31 UTC+0100 Przemyslaw Czerpak (druzus/at/priv.onet.pl)

2008-02-09 Thread Szakáts Viktor
Hi Przemek, On Sat, 09 Feb 2008, Szakáts Viktor wrote: I'll look into this header package problem tomorrow. One thing that would help a lot here, is to have a separate include dir inside the Harbour source tree, which is empty in the repository, and where these headers could be spilled from t

Re: [Harbour] What about stopping the release process?

2008-02-09 Thread Szakáts Viktor
Hi Lorenzo, Why gtwvw moved to hbgtwvw and back to gtwvw? Because Przemek raised the problem with lib names under DJGPP, where 8.3 names has to be used because it's DOS, and 'lib' is prepended by DJGPP, hence only 5 chars remain to identify a given lib. If we were using 'hb' prefix too for R

[Harbour] OLE Implementation - xHarbour Compatibility

2008-02-09 Thread Pritpal Bedi
Hello Everybody Has anybody been able to use xHarbour's win32ole.prg in Harbour ? I am in a process of porting an huge application which is heavily based on Active-X's. The application takes advantage of FreeWin (SourceForge) library and hosts many objects. I am struck at hb_oleItemToVariant() a

Re: [Harbour] What about stopping the release process?

2008-02-09 Thread Szakáts Viktor
Hi Przemek, So since it's unlike we'll have a 1.1 I think we should at least leave the lib names as they have been in the last 8 years and do a favor to poor users. It's also important argument though in fact there is a problem that we do not have compiler and linker wrapper which can work

Re: [Harbour] What about stopping the release process?

2008-02-09 Thread Szakáts Viktor
I think we should rename the libs as they were and revert HB_GTI to GTI_. 1.0 RC should be usable by a beta3 user without any modification. To me, this is just resistance to change for the matter of past convenience. It's not a very compelling argument. Like all changes, soon this one will

Re: [Harbour] 2008-02-04 09:31 UTC+0100 Przemyslaw Czerpak (druzus/at/priv.onet.pl)

2008-02-09 Thread Szakáts Viktor
Thanks Przemek. I'll look into this header package problem tomorrow. One thing that would help a lot here, is to have a separate include dir inside the Harbour source tree, which is empty in the repository, and where these headers could be spilled from the 3rd party header zip file. Such a fold

Re: [Harbour] 2008-02-04 09:31 UTC+0100 Przemyslaw Czerpak (druzus/at/priv.onet.pl)

2008-02-09 Thread Szakáts Viktor
have make_os2.cmd which is necessary for OS2 users - now they are using make_gnu.cmd from older Harbour versions or from xHarbour. Yes, unfortunately it means to update every such file in one more copy, which work will fall back to us, or they won't really be updated ever. This is true for make

[Harbour] 2008-02-09 22:42 UTC+0100 Przemyslaw Czerpak (druzus/at/priv.onet.pl)

2008-02-09 Thread Przemyslaw Czerpak
2008-02-09 22:42 UTC+0100 Przemyslaw Czerpak (druzus/at/priv.onet.pl) * harbour/harbour.spec * harbour/harbour-ce-spec * harbour/harbour-w32-spec * harbour/make_rpm.sh * harbour/make_rpmce.sh * harbour/make_rpmw32.sh * updated for recent changes in library names * added '--with

Re: [Harbour] What about stopping the release process?

2008-02-09 Thread Lorenzo Fiorini
On Feb 9, 2008 9:43 PM, Szakáts Viktor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It could certainly help in the future that such concerns > would be expressed before deciding about these changes, > yet, all I got was silence (from you) and a few approvals. At that time I thought that all the core developers a

Re: [Harbour] 2008-02-04 09:31 UTC+0100 Przemyslaw Czerpak (druzus/at/priv.onet.pl)

2008-02-09 Thread Przemyslaw Czerpak
On Sat, 09 Feb 2008, Szakáts Viktor wrote: > I'll look into this header package problem tomorrow. > One thing that would help a lot here, is to have a > separate include dir inside the Harbour source tree, > which is empty in the repository, and where these > headers could be spilled from the 3rd p

Re: [Harbour] What about stopping the release process?

2008-02-09 Thread Szakáts Viktor
Hi Lorenzo, Do you really find a change like this between beta3 and RC necessary and needed? It could certainly help in the future that such concerns would be expressed before deciding about these changes, yet, all I got was silence (from you) and a few approvals. Silence used to be consider

Re: [Harbour] What about stopping the release process?

2008-02-09 Thread Lorenzo Fiorini
On Feb 9, 2008 12:31 PM, Przemyslaw Czerpak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Not exactly again. I only plan to reduce my activity in this > project and concentrate on some other things - believe me > that Harbour is not my whole life :-). I'm very happy to read this. Since time is never enough "by de

Re: [Harbour] What about stopping the release process?

2008-02-09 Thread Phil Barnett
On Saturday 09 February 2008 06:31:11 am Przemyslaw Czerpak wrote: > Anyhow I do > not want to be master of release process. I can create binaries > for some platforms when we will be ready but I do not want to > decide about terms, create SVN tags, etc. I believe that we will > find someone who ca

Re: [Harbour] What about stopping the release process?

2008-02-09 Thread Phil Barnett
On Saturday 09 February 2008 05:17:12 am Lorenzo Fiorini wrote: > On Feb 9, 2008 7:33 AM, Phil Barnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Is the repository in an unusable state? > > Is this the only parameter to consider? > > Do you really find a change like this between beta3 and RC necessary and > ne

Re: [Harbour] 2008-02-04 09:31 UTC+0100 Przemyslaw Czerpak (druzus/at/priv.onet.pl)

2008-02-09 Thread Przemyslaw Czerpak
On Fri, 08 Feb 2008, Szakáts Viktor wrote: [...] > With all due respect if someone creating an official > binary release is not able to do this, we may have some > other problems too. Viktor, the most important is that it will be necessary to make some modifications before compilation. I intention

[Harbour] 2008-02-09 12:50 UTC+0100 Przemyslaw Czerpak (druzus/at/priv.onet.pl)

2008-02-09 Thread Przemyslaw Czerpak
2008-02-09 12:50 UTC+0100 Przemyslaw Czerpak (druzus/at/priv.onet.pl) * harbour/config/w32/global.cf * removed ' quoting from commands - *sh shells removed them but without such shell they are passed to windows command interpreter and not all version removed them best regards Prz

Re: [Harbour] What about stopping the release process?

2008-02-09 Thread Przemyslaw Czerpak
On Sat, 09 Feb 2008, Lorenzo Fiorini wrote: > > Why should we not finish Harbour at this time? > Because the two main developers don't agree about latest changes. Not exactly. I agree that library names can be source of some name conflict and I like the idea to resolve the problem. I only do not l

Re: [Harbour] Re: 2008-02-08 15:58 UTC+0100 Przemyslaw Czerpak (druzus/at/priv.onet.pl)

2008-02-09 Thread Przemyslaw Czerpak
On Sat, 09 Feb 2008, David Arturo Macias Corona wrote: > With these changes, with "old" make.exe (3.76.1): > - make_gnu.cmd: work entirely > - make_gnu.cmd install: work entirely > - make_gnu.cmd clean: fail > > [E:\harbour802]make -r clean 1>make_gnu.log >

Re: [Harbour] What about stopping the release process?

2008-02-09 Thread Marek Paliwoda
Hi Viktor, [...] One drawback which was mentioned on the list, is that we have a different license for the compiler lib, the RTL libs and pbly also PCRE. O s... ;-), I completly forgot about. But it means that we have problem with .dll (.so) builds also, haven't we ? > We also have some mutu

Re: [Harbour] What about stopping the release process?

2008-02-09 Thread Lorenzo Fiorini
On Feb 9, 2008 7:33 AM, Phil Barnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is the repository in an unusable state? Is this the only parameter to consider? Do you really find a change like this between beta3 and RC necessary and needed? All the "users" will need to update their makefiles, projects and/or

[Harbour] Re: 2008-02-08 15:58 UTC+0100 Przemyslaw Czerpak (druzus/at/priv.onet.pl)

2008-02-09 Thread David Arturo Macias Corona
Przemek: >2008-02-08 15:58 UTC+0100 Przemyslaw Czerpak (druzus/at/priv.onet.pl) > * harbour/config/os2/global.cf >! use FOR command to delete group of files With these changes, with "old" make.exe (3.76.1): - make_gnu.cmd: work entirely - make_gnu.cmd install: work entirely - make_gnu.cmd c

Re: [Harbour] What about stopping the release process?

2008-02-09 Thread Szakáts Viktor
Hi Marek, Truely speaking the whole libnames problem is a little bit unclear to me. I don't want to jump in, or "take a one side" in this disputation, but certainly if the decision was to rename the libnames, it would be better to do it now than later. "1.0" means something (at least to m

[Harbour] 2008-02-09 10:06 UTC+0100 Marek Paliwoda (mpaliwoda at interia pl)

2008-02-09 Thread Marek Paliwoda
2008-02-09 10:06 UTC+0100 Marek Paliwoda (mpaliwoda at interia pl) * harbour/contrib/hbtpathy/tplinux.c * harbour/contrib/hbtpathy/tpos2.c * harbour/contrib/hbtpathy/tpwin32.c * Fixed guarding file content with proper OS constant (HB_OS_UNIX, HB_OS_WIN_32, HB_OS_OS2) -- Marek