Hey does anyone mind if I take poppler out of Unity Main and place it in KDE 4, it's a QT4 based library that needs to be rebuilt with each new version of QT 4 also, it has a pkinfo file in it even though it needs to be maintained by us because at times we have a different Qt 4 version than Mandriva, ie we adopted 4.7 in beta and if I remember correctly they adopted it in 4.7 RC 1. So if this package needs any patches for our different version than it will be next to impossible to pull it out of Mandriva SVN, right now though we're fine as we're actually going to have 4.7 final in a repos (Unity) in a week or so if all goes well and Mandriva already has it in cooker, however that won't always be the case. We need to be careful in these instances as they can bite us.
> Hey does anyone mind if I take poppler out of Unity Main and place it in > KDE 4, it's a QT4 based library that needs to be rebuilt with each new > version of QT 4 also, it has a pkinfo file in it even though it needs to be > maintained by us because at times we have a different Qt 4 version than > Mandriva, ie we adopted 4.7 in beta and if I remember correctly they adopted > it in 4.7 RC 1. So if this package needs any patches for our different > version than it will be next to impossible to pull it out of Mandriva SVN, > right now though we're fine as we're actually going to have 4.7 final in a > repos (Unity) in a week or so if all goes well and Mandriva already has it > in cooker, however that won't always be the case. We need to be careful in > these instances as they can bite us.
> Jeremiah
> -- > PLEASE REMOVE THIS FOOTER WHEN REPLYING & REPLY BENEATH IT! > Unsubscribe: ul-developers+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<ul-developers%2Bunsubscribe@goog legroups.com> > More options: http://groups.google.com/group/ul-developers
I do. It's _not_just_a qt4 library. I had switched it to a pkginfo, b/c I have been the one to maintain this pkg as long as I can remember and the changes I make are never significant.
You can find the latest update to poppler in test and if you need me to rebuild again against a new qt4 lemme know.
Yes it will need to be rebuilt against the new Qt 4 in the repos, which is 4.7 RC 1 it shouldn't need to be rebuilt when we go to 4.7 final here after the freeze but just in case I may ask you to do it if things get quirky.
-- Sent from my Palm Pre On Oct 5, 2010 5:03 AM, Matthew Dawkins <matty...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 10:49 PM, Jeremiah Summers <jmiah...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey does anyone mind if I take poppler out of Unity Main and place it in KDE 4, it's a QT4 based library that needs to be rebuilt with each new version of QT 4 also, it has a pkinfo file in it even though it needs to be maintained by us because at times we have a different Qt 4 version than Mandriva, ie we adopted 4.7 in beta and if I remember correctly they adopted it in 4.7 RC 1. So if this package needs any patches for our different version than it will be next to impossible to pull it out of Mandriva SVN, right now though we're fine as we're actually going to have 4.7 final in a repos (Unity) in a week or so if all goes well and Mandriva already has it in cooker, however that won't always be the case. We need to be careful in these instances as they can bite us.
Jeremiah
--
PLEASE REMOVE THIS FOOTER WHEN REPLYING & REPLY BENEATH IT!
I do. It's _not_just_a qt4 library. I had switched it to a pkginfo, b/c I have been the one to maintain this pkg as long as I can remember and the changes I make are never significant.
You can find the latest update to poppler in test and if you need me to rebuild again against a new qt4 lemme know.
Matt
--
PLEASE REMOVE THIS FOOTER WHEN REPLYING & REPLY BENEATH IT!
poppler is used by non-KDE PDF readers/editors that I have seen in the past (that's the only time I have known myself to install it.. I forget if it was evince or epdfview that needed it, but I know that is one example of a program that utilizes that package, and I think that is reason enough to not move it to KDE (especially since I don't use KDE :P)
-- "Custom" is NOT mass produced! ...then it's just a product line. Custom Processing Unlimited
I honestly don't see any reason why even qt4 should reside in KDE channel. The equation qt=KDE is simply not true. I would fit there only packages that require kdelibs, but in the end I don't really mind.
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Gianvacca <gianva...@unity-linux.org> wrote: > Jeremiah,
> I honestly don't see any reason why even qt4 should reside in KDE channel. > The equation qt=KDE is simply not true. > I would fit there only packages that require kdelibs, but in the end I don't > really mind.
Quite frankly it's in the KDE 4 channel because I maintain it and pretty much all the Qt4 packages and I like them to all be in one place, so yes QT4=KDE because I maintain both and heavily. I hate how there is no organization in Unity SVN. It makes its hard to sort through and track packages that are based on Qt4 and when a version of Qt4 changes if the Qt based packages are in the KDE 4 channel they get updated if they're not than it's up to the person that packaged them to track the new Qt4 release and beings there's maybe a handful of packagers here and not many do or wanted to do KDE/Qt4 packages than my guess would be it would go unnoticed until someone reported the package as broke. Also I don't know of any other set of 1000+ packages that depend on it, as opposed to the maybe 10 that aren't KDE centric that we have in the repos that pull it. Those packages are in main however, to my knowledge no other DE pulls in Qt4 only KDE. So it wins out.
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Jeremiah Summers <jmiah...@gmail.com> wrote: > I hate how there is no organization in Unity SVN. It makes its hard to sort > through and track packages that are based on Qt4
Sorry, I have to disagree with you here. The SVN *is* organized, it's organized by package name. Go look at any other distro's RCS and you'll see they have it organized the same.
Also, KDE and QT are rather unique in that they are pretty exclusive to each other. It's hard to look at any other set of packages and say the same.
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Kaleb <djj...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Jeremiah Summers <jmiah...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> I hate how there is no organization in Unity SVN. It makes its hard to >> sort >> through and track packages that are based on Qt4
> Sorry, I have to disagree with you here. The SVN *is* organized, it's > organized by package name. Go look at any other distro's RCS and you'll see > they have it organized the same.
> Also, KDE and QT are rather unique in that they are pretty exclusive to > each other. It's hard to look at any other set of packages and say the same.
> -- > PLEASE REMOVE THIS FOOTER WHEN REPLYING & REPLY BENEATH IT! > Unsubscribe: ul-developers+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<ul-developers%2Bunsubscribe@goog legroups.com> > More options: http://groups.google.com/group/ul-developers
So if we are to push the new poppler, I have created a rebuild list
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Kaleb <djj...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Jeremiah Summers <jmiah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I hate how there is no organization in Unity SVN. It makes its hard to >> sort >> through and track packages that are based on Qt4
> Sorry, I have to disagree with you here. The SVN *is* organized, it's > organized by package name. Go look at any other distro's RCS and you'll see > they have it organized the same.
Doesn't mean it's correct. My example would be if I was to hand the reigns over to someone to continue Qt4 and KDE development they could quite easily. It's just a matter of downloading the kde4 folder in svn and going through some 200 folders/packages.. Try that with Gnome... It's awful this is why on fedora git, it can take 10+ minutes to find a single package.. why on Mandriva you can't even view the packages most of the time without knowing the direct link. And why at times on our own SVN at times there's timeouts. How simple would it be to follow the same pattern we do on the mirrors? I don't buy, seems like a bridge jump too me, and last I knew we weren't everybody else.
> Also, KDE and QT are rather unique in that they are pretty exclusive to each > other. It's hard to look at any other set of packages and say the same.
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Matthew Dawkins <matty...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Kaleb <djj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Jeremiah Summers <jmiah...@gmail.com> >> wrote:
>>> I hate how there is no organization in Unity SVN. It makes its hard to >>> sort >>> through and track packages that are based on Qt4
>> Sorry, I have to disagree with you here. The SVN *is* organized, it's >> organized by package name. Go look at any other distro's RCS and you'll see >> they have it organized the same. >> Also, KDE and QT are rather unique in that they are pretty exclusive to >> each other. It's hard to look at any other set of packages and say the same.
>> -- >> PLEASE REMOVE THIS FOOTER WHEN REPLYING & REPLY BENEATH IT! >> Unsubscribe: ul-developers+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com >> More options: http://groups.google.com/group/ul-developers
> So if we are to push the new poppler, I have created a rebuild list
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Jeremiah Summers <jmiah...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Matthew Dawkins <matty...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Kaleb <djj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Jeremiah Summers <jmiah...@gmail.com> > >> wrote:
> >>> I hate how there is no organization in Unity SVN. It makes its hard to > >>> sort > >>> through and track packages that are based on Qt4
> >> Sorry, I have to disagree with you here. The SVN *is* organized, it's > >> organized by package name. Go look at any other distro's RCS and you'll > see > >> they have it organized the same. > >> Also, KDE and QT are rather unique in that they are pretty exclusive to > >> each other. It's hard to look at any other set of packages and say the > same.
> >> -- > >> PLEASE REMOVE THIS FOOTER WHEN REPLYING & REPLY BENEATH IT! > >> Unsubscribe: ul-developers+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<ul-developers%2Bunsubscribe@goog legroups.com> > >> More options: http://groups.google.com/group/ul-developers
> > So if we are to push the new poppler, I have created a rebuild list
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:24 PM, Jeremiah Summers <jmiah...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Matthew Dawkins <matty...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Kaleb <djj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Jeremiah Summers <jmiah...@gmail.com> >>> wrote:
>>>> I hate how there is no organization in Unity SVN. It makes its hard to >>>> sort >>>> through and track packages that are based on Qt4
>>> Sorry, I have to disagree with you here. The SVN *is* organized, it's >>> organized by package name. Go look at any other distro's RCS and you'll see >>> they have it organized the same. >>> Also, KDE and QT are rather unique in that they are pretty exclusive to >>> each other. It's hard to look at any other set of packages and say the same.
>>> -- >>> PLEASE REMOVE THIS FOOTER WHEN REPLYING & REPLY BENEATH IT! >>> Unsubscribe: ul-developers+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com >>> More options: http://groups.google.com/group/ul-developers
>> So if we are to push the new poppler, I have created a rebuild list
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 3:26 PM, Jeremiah Summers <jmiah...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:24 PM, Jeremiah Summers <jmiah...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Matthew Dawkins <matty...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> >> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Kaleb <djj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Jeremiah Summers <jmiah...@gmail.com> > >>> wrote:
> >>>> I hate how there is no organization in Unity SVN. It makes its hard to > >>>> sort > >>>> through and track packages that are based on Qt4
> >>> Sorry, I have to disagree with you here. The SVN *is* organized, it's > >>> organized by package name. Go look at any other distro's RCS and you'll > see > >>> they have it organized the same. > >>> Also, KDE and QT are rather unique in that they are pretty exclusive to > >>> each other. It's hard to look at any other set of packages and say the > same.
> >>> -- > >>> PLEASE REMOVE THIS FOOTER WHEN REPLYING & REPLY BENEATH IT! > >>> Unsubscribe: ul-developers+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<ul-developers%2Bunsubscribe@goog legroups.com> > >>> More options: http://groups.google.com/group/ul-developers
> >> So if we are to push the new poppler, I have created a rebuild list
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Matthew Dawkins <matty...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 3:26 PM, Jeremiah Summers <jmiah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:24 PM, Jeremiah Summers <jmiah...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Matthew Dawkins <matty...@gmail.com> >> > wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Kaleb <djj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Jeremiah Summers <jmiah...@gmail.com> >> >>> wrote:
>> >>>> I hate how there is no organization in Unity SVN. It makes its hard >> >>>> to >> >>>> sort >> >>>> through and track packages that are based on Qt4
>> >>> Sorry, I have to disagree with you here. The SVN *is* organized, it's >> >>> organized by package name. Go look at any other distro's RCS and >> >>> you'll see >> >>> they have it organized the same. >> >>> Also, KDE and QT are rather unique in that they are pretty exclusive >> >>> to >> >>> each other. It's hard to look at any other set of packages and say the >> >>> same.
>> >>> -- >> >>> PLEASE REMOVE THIS FOOTER WHEN REPLYING & REPLY BENEATH IT! >> >>> Unsubscribe: ul-developers+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com >> >>> More options: http://groups.google.com/group/ul-developers
>> >> So if we are to push the new poppler, I have created a rebuild list
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 3:41 PM, Jeremiah Summers <jmiah...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Matthew Dawkins <matty...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 3:26 PM, Jeremiah Summers <jmiah...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> >> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:24 PM, Jeremiah Summers <jmiah...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Matthew Dawkins <matty...@gmail.com> > >> > wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Kaleb <djj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Jeremiah Summers < > jmiah...@gmail.com> > >> >>> wrote:
> >> >>>> I hate how there is no organization in Unity SVN. It makes its hard > >> >>>> to > >> >>>> sort > >> >>>> through and track packages that are based on Qt4
> >> >>> Sorry, I have to disagree with you here. The SVN *is* organized, > it's > >> >>> organized by package name. Go look at any other distro's RCS and > >> >>> you'll see > >> >>> they have it organized the same. > >> >>> Also, KDE and QT are rather unique in that they are pretty exclusive > >> >>> to > >> >>> each other. It's hard to look at any other set of packages and say > the > >> >>> same.
> >> >>> -- > >> >>> PLEASE REMOVE THIS FOOTER WHEN REPLYING & REPLY BENEATH IT! > >> >>> Unsubscribe: ul-developers+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<ul-developers%2Bunsubscribe@goog legroups.com> > >> >>> More options: http://groups.google.com/group/ul-developers
> >> >> So if we are to push the new poppler, I have created a rebuild list
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Gianvacca <gianva...@unity-linux.org> wrote: > Jeremiah,
> I don't know if you are aware of it, but with pkgutils comes > req > if you launch, for instance > req libqtcore4 > you get the list of all packages that need to be rebuilt if the lib major > changes.
Yes but looking in a folder and knowing is a lot easier than reading this ;)
