Re: [Gchemutils-main] The Gnome Chemistry Utils 0.9.90

[Julian Sikorski]

Jean Bréfort pisze:
> This new patch compiles, but not sure it really works (.cdx files might
> appear corrupted).
> 
> Le lundi 08 septembre 2008 à 10:58 +0200, Julian Sikorski a écrit :
>> Jean Bréfort pisze:
>>> Le dimanche 07 septembre 2008 à 22:22 +0200, Julian Sikorski a écrit :
>>>> Jean Bréfort pisze:
>>>>> Previous patch did not work. This one should. Please test and tell me.
>>>>>
>>>>> Le dimanche 07 septembre 2008 à 19:04 +0200, Jean Bréfort a écrit :
>>>>>> You might try attached patch and tell me if it works (not sure).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Le dimanche 07 septembre 2008 à 18:19 +0200, Julian Sikorski a écrit :
>>>>>>> Jean Bréfort pisze:
>>>>>>>> Le dimanche 07 septembre 2008 à 14:36 +0200, Julian Sikorski a écrit :
>>>>>>>>> Jean Bréfort pisze:
>>>>>>>>>> Le dimanche 07 septembre 2008 à 12:25 +0200, Julian Sikorski a écrit 
>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>> Jean Bréfort pisze:
>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the first beta for the 0.10 releases. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> News are: 
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> CGhemPaint: 
>>>>>>>>>>>>       * Fixed issues about residues management.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Gnome Crystal: 
>>>>>>>>>>>>       * Add support for document properties.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> GChemTable: 
>>>>>>>>>>>>       * Add Brazilian to known languages.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Other: 
>>>>>>>>>>>>       * Fixed some build issues (Daniel Leidert).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Updated translation: fr.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sources are at:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://download.savannah.gnu.org/releases/gchemutils/0.9/gnome-chemistry-utils-0.9.90.tar.bz2
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://download.savannah.gnu.org/releases/gchemutils/0.9/gnome-chemistry-utils-0.9.90.tar.gz
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's now time to test, and update existing translations (or add new
>>>>>>>>>>>> ones). Before 0.10.0, I still need to update the applications
>>>>>>>>>>>> documentation and write some more API docs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jean
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I was trying to update the Fedora RPM to 0.10 and I have noticed 
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> the binaries and .desktop files (well, at least) contain -0.10 
>>>>>>>>>>> suffixes.
>>>>>>>>>>> Is this intended to stay like that?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Kindest regards,
>>>>>>>>>>> Julian
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it is wanted, so that different branches can be installed in
>>>>>>>>>> parallel. Also links are created, i.e. gchempaint -> gchempaint-0.10.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>> Jean
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Also, is a devel package still necessary? For 0.8 it contained include
>>>>>>>>> files, pkgconfig file and api reference docs. None of these are
>>>>>>>>> installed as of 0.9.90, so I guess the devel package can go away and 
>>>>>>>>> .so
>>>>>>>>> symlinks can go with the main package.
>>>>>>>> I confirm, no more devel package, at least until somebody request one.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> Jean
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All right, almost there. It turned out that gchemutils does not build on
>>>>>>> ppc (and probably ppc64). Tom Callaway suggested the attached fix, but
>>>>>>> it still does not solve the problem completely. Build log is here:
>>>>>>> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=812065&name=build.log
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Julian
>>>>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately the ppc build still fails:
>>>> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=812287&name=build.log
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Julian
>>> I see. Unfortunately, I have no ppc around, so I can't check the whole
>>> thing by myself. This new patch should enhance things.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Jean
>> This time it failed on ppc64 first, but the builds are made in parallel,
>> so I don't know about ppc:
>> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=812992&name=build.log
>>
>> Regards,
>> Julian
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gchemutils-main mailing list
>> address@hidden
>> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gchemutils-main
>>
Looks like you accidentally sent the wrong patch, this one is the same
as the previous one.

Regards,
Julian