On 2013-11-19 14:43:27 +0100
Schaich Alonso wrote:
> [...]
And for the second time, my mail to Alexey Dokuchaev was rejected with
> : host mail.nsu.ru[84.237.50.3] said: 550-sender IP address
> 66.111.4.27 is locally blacklisted here. If you think 550 this is wrong,
> get in touch with p
On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 17:16:01 +0700
Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 02, 2013 at 12:14:40AM +0700, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 11:34:38PM +0700, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> > > Please consider attached patch to make phonon optional in qt4-designer,
> > > yet still on by
On Sat, Nov 02, 2013 at 12:14:40AM +0700, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 11:34:38PM +0700, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> > Please consider attached patch to make phonon optional in qt4-designer,
> > yet still on by default.
>
> I think I forgot pkg-plist part. Attaching another dif
On 2013-11-1, at 17:34, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> Hi there dear KDE people,
>
> Most of Qt4 ports allow to selectively disable some heavy parts, e.g.
> phonon, webkit, gstreamer, etc. However, our Qt4 framework does not
> allow
> to optionally disable those bits. Previously, I've already raised
Hi there dear KDE people,
Most of Qt4 ports allow to selectively disable some heavy parts, e.g.
phonon, webkit, gstreamer, etc. However, our Qt4 framework does not allow
to optionally disable those bits. Previously, I've already raised this
bug about qt4-webkit, now it's time for other Qt4 ports
On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 11:34:38PM +0700, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> Please consider attached patch to make phonon optional in qt4-designer,
> yet still on by default.
I think I forgot pkg-plist part. Attaching another diff.
./danfe
Index: Makefile
On Sunday 15 June 2008 05:29:43 pm Adriaan de Groot wrote:
> If we've got them all packaged separately anyway (most of them do roll
> their own tarballs, out of kdesupport :) ) then there's no need for it.
They're all separate ports, some more up to date than others.
> About Qt, though -- area51
On Monday 16 June 2008, David Johnson wrote:
> On Sunday 15 June 2008 04:27:01 pm Martin Wilke wrote:
> > Need we really kdesupport? After 4.4.1 release we don't need this or?
>
> We don't need a kdesupport metaport. It was just an idea. It includes stuff
> that is not needed for the basic KDE desk
On Sunday 15 June 2008 04:27:01 pm Martin Wilke wrote:
> Need we really kdesupport? After 4.4.1 release we don't need this or?
We don't need a kdesupport metaport. It was just an idea. It includes stuff
that is not needed for the basic KDE desktop.
--
David Johnson
_
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 10:29:26AM -0700, David Johnson wrote:
> On Thursday 12 June 2008 01:59:01 am Adriaan de Groot wrote:
> > Is the plan to build kdesupport as a regular KDE port or to do each part
> > separately? QCA2 is developed in kdesupport a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Friday 13 June 2008 15:12:31 Max Brazhnikov wrote:
> Yesterday I found that qt4 configure script (devel/qt4/files/configure ) is
> from previous release. I have updated it to 4.4.0. Additional corrections
> to some qt4-ports are required (see patch)
Yesterday I found that qt4 configure script (devel/qt4/files/configure ) is
from previous release. I have updated it to 4.4.0. Additional corrections to
some qt4-ports are required (see patch). If there's no objection I'll commit
this to area51.
Max
qt4.diff.gz
Description: GNU Zip compressed
On Thursday 12 June 2008 01:59:01 am Adriaan de Groot wrote:
> Is the plan to build kdesupport as a regular KDE port or to do each part
> separately? QCA2 is developed in kdesupport and building it from there and
> installing that is compatible with the rest of KDE4.
If we make a kdesupport port,
On Thursday 12 June 2008 06:58:13 am David Johnson wrote:
> * We need a QCA2 port. trunk/kdesupport says "Please install the
> qca2.0.0 package from your distribution or build from source if you want
> to use qca with KDE trunk."
Is the plan to build kdesupport as a regular KDE port or to do each
On Thursday 12 June 2008, David Johnson wrote:
> So far Qt4 from area51 ports seems fine. Pending some decisions on final
> port naming/splitup/etc, I would say it's ready to go. Going down the
> list of notes on the wiki:
> * I don't think the qtdemo port should be the master port to pull
> every
So far Qt4 from area51 ports seems fine. Pending some decisions on final
port naming/splitup/etc, I would say it's ready to go. Going down the
list of notes on the wiki:
* I don't think the qtdemo port should be the master port to pull
everything in with. Qt4 should fill that roll. Perhaps it c
16 matches
Mail list logo
