?,
I think we should talk about our goals and our development plans. I
think this should be done on the BibleTime list (bt-de...@crosswire.org)
Gary
On 07/10/2013 09:38 AM, ? ?? wrote:
Hi, just would like add my points to this conversation.
If Ubuntu Phone OS supports Qt C++ dev
Hi, just would like add my points to this conversation.
If Ubuntu Phone OS supports Qt C++ development, why not to give a try to
existing Sword Qt Project? BibleTime Mini is now at releasing development
stage and have relative long development history. It use QtCreator
*.pro-file based building/de
heya :)
On 05/07/2013, at 7:27 AM, "Troy A. Griffitts" wrote:
>> 2) An improved CLucene search has long been something that BibleTime touts -
>> the index covers more fields and metadata than Sword's CLucene index.
>
> Yes, I've seen the ability to search on 'footnotes' and 'headings', but
>
On 07/04/2013 02:27 PM, Troy A. Griffitts wrote:
On 07/04/2013 08:45 PM, Greg Hellings wrote:
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Troy A. Griffitts
mailto:scr...@crosswire.org>> wrote:
Not to insult anyone-- please don't feel insulted...
But what exactly does basing code off of Biblet
On 07/04/2013 08:45 PM, Greg Hellings wrote:
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Troy A. Griffitts
mailto:scr...@crosswire.org>> wrote:
Not to insult anyone-- please don't feel insulted...
But what exactly does basing code off of Bibletime instead of
SWORD give you? Are any of the
I am definitely leveraging BibleTime backend code to install works and
the config system for dealing with user preferences. The filters also
provide parallel viewing of passages in a single window. The fact that
the BibleTime backend converts to QString, etc. is a big savings for a
Qt app.
Ga
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Troy A. Griffitts wrote:
> Not to insult anyone-- please don't feel insulted...
>
> But what exactly does basing code off of Bibletime instead of SWORD give
> you? Are any of these things worth having in the engine itself?
>
Primarily:
1) Translation between char*
STEP doesn't use any wrappers per say, but confines all the (J)Sword code
to as few places as possible (4-5 classes). The idea being any changes to
APIs are only in a few places. It also does mean that if for some reason
some other engine comes along with a different format of books, then we'd
be a
Not to insult anyone-- please don't feel insulted...
But what exactly does basing code off of Bibletime instead of SWORD give
you? Are any of these things worth having in the engine itself?
I have looked at the backend 'wrappers' in Bibletime around SWORD a few
years back and I was disappoin
Great!! I will post the git page (to the uBible Developers) if you want me
too, or you can head over to
https://github.com/uBible/uBible/issues/1
and post the info yourself if you want.
We have been discussing using Bible Time's backend because @Mark Trompell
suggested it.
You can e-mail me off
I am currently working on a second frontend for BibleTime that uses QML.
It is a work in progress and I have some basic features up and working.
Bibles, Commentaries, and Books can be read in multiple windows. The
windows can be tabbed or split views of the screen. The install process
for bible
It uses QML, so it is part of Qt. I will bring this up to the others
and see what they think about it all.
It may be a good idea. Anyhow we are designing an interface at the
moment to get the features we want, using what capabilities QML has,
and designing it to be fully integrated with the Ubu
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 2:04 AM, Israel wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> There are a few of us who have banded together to start work on a Ubuntu
> Touch SWORD app. Is anyone else working on one?
AFAIK Ubuntu touch uses qt, so maybe just another UI Frontent to
bibletime would do fine,
with the advantage o
Hi everyone,
There are a few of us who have banded together to start work on a Ubuntu
Touch SWORD app. Is anyone else working on one?
If anyone is interested please join us on github.
https://github.com/uBible
We are currently in the process of working out the beginning details,
such as UI set
On 24/04/12 01:26, Daniel Owens wrote:
Yes. Thanks for all the help on this one. I think it's led me to a
weird bug in BibleTime though. Please try this: In Bibletime, open
the NET bible. Hover over a footnote. The footnote is properly
displayed in the mag. Now close BibleTime and re-open
On 04/23/2012 02:51 PM, Barry Drake wrote:
On 23/04/12 16:17, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
The information Dmitrijs asked me for did give me the information I
needed
to sort the problem.
I'm glad you got sorted it out =
Mixing development repositories, can lead to all sort of weird stuff.
Y
On 04/23/2012 03:51 PM, Barry Drake wrote:
On 23/04/12 16:17, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
The information Dmitrijs asked me for did give me the information I
needed
to sort the problem.
I'm glad you got sorted it out =
Mixing development repositories, can lead to all sort of weird stuff.
Ye
On 23/04/12 16:17, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
The information Dmitrijs asked me for did give me the information I needed
to sort the problem.
I'm glad you got sorted it out =
Mixing development repositories, can lead to all sort of weird stuff.
Yes. Thanks for all the help on this one. I th
On 23 April 2012 15:35, Greg Hellings wrote:
> From the CMakeLists.txt file:
>
> SET(CMAKE_CXX_FLAGS_RELEASE "-Wall -O2 -fexceptions")
> SET(CMAKE_CXX_FLAGS_DEBUG "-Wall -Werror -O2 -ggdb -fexceptions")
>
> It is the -Werror switch, only enabled in Debug builds, that causes
> the deprecati
On 23 April 2012 15:14, Barry Drake wrote:
> On 23/04/12 13:49, Greg Hellings wrote:
>>
>> If you want to get more to the bottom of it, try providing Dmitrijs
>> with the information he specified, but it sounds like you are drawing
>> the official Ubuntu package of BibleTime and the PPA package of
On 23 April 2012 13:49, Greg Hellings wrote:
> Xiphos 3.1.5 requires SWORD SVN. In the Crosswire Ubuntu PPA current
> SVN of SWORD is named libsword9.
>
Xiphos 3.1.5 does not require Sword SVN, only recommends it. (I did
the build script for xiphos)
libsword9 is not svn of sword. It is still 1.6
Awesome. So it is as I suggested. A user who downloads and builds
Bibletime, not in debug mode, wouldn't see the error, and they would be
able to upgrade their SWORD library without running into the problem?
Cooleo. Thanks for the details.
On 04/23/2012 04:35 PM, Greg Hellings wrote:
From
>From the CMakeLists.txt file:
SET(CMAKE_CXX_FLAGS_RELEASE "-Wall -O2 -fexceptions")
SET(CMAKE_CXX_FLAGS_DEBUG "-Wall -Werror -O2 -ggdb -fexceptions")
It is the -Werror switch, only enabled in Debug builds, that causes
the deprecation warnings to be show stoppers. Last I checked Debian
On 23/04/12 13:49, Greg Hellings wrote:
If you want to get more to the bottom of it, try providing Dmitrijs
with the information he specified, but it sounds like you are drawing
the official Ubuntu package of BibleTime and the PPA package of Xiphos
to get the conflict you indicated.
You are rig
Not disputing the long term desire to not build against deprecated API
methods (that's why we deprecate), and I certainly understand the policy
to not release Bibletime until it is not using any deprecated methods of
the most recent SWORD library, but I can't see how it is useful to cause
Bible
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 8:07 AM, Troy A. Griffitts wrote:
> Not disputing any of this, but I'm curious why BT can't compile against SVN.
> I don't believe we've intentionally made any API interface changes in a
> while, and we try our hardest to be backward compatible. If you let me
> know, I ca
Not disputing any of this, but I'm curious why BT can't compile against
SVN. I don't believe we've intentionally made any API interface changes
in a while, and we try our hardest to be backward compatible. If you
let me know, I can have a look at what we broke.
Troy
On 04/23/2012 02:49 PM,
Xiphos 3.1.5 requires SWORD SVN. In the Crosswire Ubuntu PPA current
SVN of SWORD is named libsword9.
BibleTime 2.9.1 cannot be built against SWORD SVN but only against
SWORD 1.6.2. In Ubuntu's current release this version of SWORD is
named libsword8.
There is a branch in BibleTime's git reposito
On 23 April 2012 12:40, Barry Drake wrote:
> On 23/04/12 12:11, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
>>
>> do not mix PPAs with official archive.
>>
>
> I understand that. What I'm doing is reporting that there is a problem in
> the packages held in Ubuntu 12.04 repo. I'm asking whoever is responsible
> for
On 23/04/12 12:11, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
do not mix PPAs with official archive.
I understand that. What I'm doing is reporting that there is a problem
in the packages held in Ubuntu 12.04 repo. I'm asking whoever is
responsible for submissions to Ubuntu to get things up to date as soon
do not mix PPAs with official archive.
What do
$ apt-cache policy bibletime
$ apt-cache policy xiphos
$ apt-cache policy libsword-dev
Say?
On 23 April 2012 09:57, Barry Drake wrote:
> On 23/04/12 02:46, Karl Kleinpaste wrote:
>>
>> I wasn't aware, but you'll have to be more specific: What so
On 23/04/12 06:44, Chris Little wrote:
I don't observe any problem installing or running BibleTime & Xiphos
on 12.04.
I'm assuming you are not using the packaged binaries from the 12.04
repos since Xiphos was packaged with libsword9?
God bless,Barry.
--
From Barry Drake (The Revd) H
On 23/04/12 02:46, Karl Kleinpaste wrote:
I wasn't aware, but you'll have to be more specific: What sort of
dependency conflicts? What does apt-get complain about?
Specifically, the packages offered under 12.04 use libsword8 for
BibleTime and libsword9 for Xiphos. If BibleTime is installed fi
On 04/22/2012 06:46 PM, Karl Kleinpaste wrote:
Barry Drake writes:
I just discovered that Bibletime and Xiphos can't be installed together
from the Ubuntu packages for 12.04 because of dependency conflicts.
I wasn't aware, but you'll have to be more specific: What sort of
dependency conflicts
Barry Drake writes:
> I just discovered that Bibletime and Xiphos can't be installed together
> from the Ubuntu packages for 12.04 because of dependency conflicts.
I wasn't aware, but you'll have to be more specific: What sort of
dependency conflicts? What does apt-get complain about?
_
I just discovered that Bibletime and Xiphos can't be installed together
from the Ubuntu packages for 12.04 because of dependency conflicts. I
used to like having both frontends available. I just wondered if folk
were aware of the current situation and whether this will alter any time
soon?
Hi there I've just logged a new bug with Xiphos on Ubuntu 12.04
Alpha 1. The report is at: 899...@bugs.launchpad.net
If anyone wants me to look at anything to help with this, I can try.
The bug is described as: Title: xiphos crashed with SIGSEGV in
sword::SWBuf::SWBuf() - oh, and it is ve
You can always compile it your self from here:
http://www.crosswire.org/wiki/Tutorial:Compiling_%26_Installing_SWORD
and here:
http://devel.bibletime.info/wiki/BuildingBibleTime
IIRC the latest API is sword 1.6.2 which includes libsword6 and the latest
Bibletime 2.8.1 only requires sword 1.6.0
On 04/30/2011 11:10 AM, Greg Hellings wrote:
> For some reason either Debian or Ubuntu refuses to get the latest
> BibleTime version.
If I remember this rightly, I was told (I think by Dmitrij) that the
latest BibleTime and Xiphos need libsword9. I don't think I got a clear
explanation of what s
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 3:53 AM, Barry Drake wrote:
> Hi there Currently, Natty 10.04 offers a binary for Xiphos that
> won't install because Xulrunner is now not only deprecated but marked as
> 'forbidden' (whatever that means). Bibletime is OK however.
This is known. Xiphos team is worki
Hi there Currently, Natty 10.04 offers a binary for Xiphos that
won't install because Xulrunner is now not only deprecated but marked as
'forbidden' (whatever that means). Bibletime is OK however.
There seems to be a slight issue in the current BibleTime binary in the
Natty repo (2.5) in th
Martin Gruner wrote:
> the BibleTime team is proud to announce the release of BibleTime 2.5
> (Christmas edition).
Congratulations!
> @Packagers: It would be great if new packages for the 2.5 release could be
> created and published before Christmas.
BibleTime 2.5 packages for Ubuntu Hardy, I
Peter von Kaehne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think we had discussed this a while ago and the discussion went
> inconclusive. Some gthought is was a packaging bug, others thought it
> was useful as it gave the user a fully working system.
I don't recall the previous discussion being inconclusiv
Ubuntu has packaged a large number of our modules and made them
dependencies to Bibletime and Gnomesword.
If someone installes Gnomesword or BT automatic the first Bible module
alphabetically satisfying the dependency will be installed to by root
and is subsequently not uninstallable via the modul
Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David
> J. Ring, Jr.
> Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 4:56 PM
> To: SWORD Developers' Collaboration Forum
> Subject: Re: [sword-devel] Ubuntu
>
> Unfortunately with the distributions I've tried,
In a message dated 4/26/2006 8:56:55 AM Central Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
BTW, the
new Debian installers work very well on a very wide range of
equipment. You should have no trouble using
that.
Well, I've had no problems with it. The nice thing about a
LiveCD like Kno
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I rather like Knoppix as a nice Debian installer. The nice thing with
Knoppix is that you can use it as a boot disk on just about any
relatively modern PC. I have an old 486 in my basement with only 32 meg
and it runs a Knoppix installed Debian - sometimes a little
In a message dated 4/26/2006 8:31:33 AM Central Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have used for many years slackware it runs well on older machines,
I have now switched to Debian becasue I need it for my work. It works well on
older machines to..
I rather like Knoppix as a
On 26/04/06, André Braselmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 04:56:26PM -0400, David J. Ring, Jr. wrote:> Anyone have a recommendation for a linux distro that runs quickly on old> machines?>I have used for many years slackware it runs well on older machines, I have now switched
On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 04:56:26PM -0400, David J. Ring, Jr. wrote:
> Anyone have a recommendation for a linux distro that runs quickly on old
> machines?
>
hmmm. I'm using FreeBSD since years for my desktop with the minimal
fluxbox windowmanager. FreeBSD is a complete Unix system, not "just"
DM Smith wrote:
David J. Ring, Jr. wrote:
I was just about to put on Windows98SE on the machine, and grab the
updates before MicroSoft stops supporting Win98SE this year and
making a total backup of the computer so I'd have a "new" and up to
date copy of the operating system. I might just do
David J. Ring, Jr. wrote:
I was just about to put on Windows98SE on the machine, and grab the updates
before MicroSoft stops supporting Win98SE this year and making a total
backup of the computer so I'd have a "new" and up to date copy of the
operating system. I might just do this anyway. It
Le Vendredi 21 Avril 2006 23:40, Roberto C. Sanchez a écrit :
> David J. Ring, Jr. wrote:
> > Unfortunately with the distributions I've tried, I find they run much
> > slower on older machines - much slower than Windows XP - which surprises
> > me. I have one machine that is a Pentium 3 at about 5
age -
From: "Roberto C. Sanchez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "SWORD Developers' Collaboration Forum"
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 5:40 PM
Subject: Re: [sword-devel] Ubuntu
It is not so much a matter of distro as a matter of desktop environment.
Choose a light
On 4/21/06, David J. Ring, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Unfortunately with the distributions I've tried, I find they run much sloweron older machines - much slower than Windows XP - which surprises me. Ihave one machine that is a Pentium 3 at about 550 MHz with 64 MB RAM and it
is slower than a
David J. Ring, Jr. wrote:
> Unfortunately with the distributions I've tried, I find they run much slower
> on older machines - much slower than Windows XP - which surprises me. I
> have one machine that is a Pentium 3 at about 550 MHz with 64 MB RAM and it
> is slower than a slothful man at wor
MAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "SWORD Developers' Collaboration Forum"
> Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 4:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [sword-devel] Ubuntu
>
>
> Barry,
>
> I have been dabbling with Ubuntu also, and it is a super easy system
> to use. I'm a nativ
From: "Shane Rice" <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: "SWORD Developers' Collaboration Forum" <sword-devel@crosswire.org>Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 4:09 PMSubject: Re: [sword-devel] Ubuntu
Barry,I have been dabbling with Ubuntu also, and it is a super easy sys
SWORD Developers' Collaboration Forum"
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 4:09 PM
Subject: Re: [sword-devel] Ubuntu
Barry,
I have been dabbling with Ubuntu also, and it is a super easy system
to use. I'm a native Windows user, but now I dual boot with Ubuntu. A
very very nice distr
Barry,
I have been dabbling with Ubuntu also, and it is a super easy system
to use. I'm a native Windows user, but now I dual boot with Ubuntu. A
very very nice distribution!
Shane
Barry Drake wrote:
Hi there
Sorry if I'm slightly off-topic here. Over Easter, I decided to
In fact, some of the sword developers are devs for ubuntu or repo managers... just an FYI. : )On 4/21/06, Barry Drake <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Hi there Sorry if I'm slightly off-topic here. Over Easter, I decided to update
my six-year old Linux so I could test a recent BibleTime with N
Hi there
Sorry if I'm slightly off-topic here. Over Easter, I decided to update
my six-year old Linux so I could test a recent BibleTime with NET. I
was amazed at how easy it was to install Debian compared with a few
years ago. I wrote to the Debian folk to congratulate them, and o
62 matches
Mail list logo
