source tarball

Showing 1-9 of 9 messages
source tarball Morgan Hardwood 6/3/12 9:32 AM
Hi

Where is the 1.5.2 source tarball?
You used to provide them, the 1.5.2 one is missing. Packagers don't want to have to install svn just to get the source.

One more thing, please change indexing namewidth to accomodate the full filenames:
IndexOptions NameWidth=*
See:
Re: [BlueGriffon] source tarball Daniel Glazman 6/3/12 10:35 AM
Le 03/06/12 18:32, Morgan Hardwood a �crit :
> Hi
>
> Where is the 1.5.2 source tarball?
> You used to provide them, the 1.5.2 one is missing. Packagers don't want
> to have to install svn just to get the source.

No, I never provided source tarballs and I won't, sorry. I already have
too much to upload at each release and svn is simple to install (on
_all_ platforms) and use.

> One more thing, please change indexing namewidth to accomodate the full
> filenames:
> IndexOptions NameWidth=*
> See:
> http://bluegriffon.org/freshmeat/1.5.2/
> http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.0/mod/mod_autoindex.html#indexoptions.namewidth
> http://www.superk.org/index.php/Apache_FancyIndexing

Ah, good catch. Will do.

</Daniel>
Re: [BlueGriffon] source tarball Morgan Hardwood 6/3/12 12:15 PM
Hmm then I'm a little confused:
1.4.1 has what looks like a generic x86_64 tarball available without svn:

1.5.* versions don't have one like they, they have specifically Ubuntu and Fedora tarballs:
As a Gentoo user, I don't know where to get 1.5.2 from (assuming I don't want to use svn).
Re: [BlueGriffon] source tarball Daniel Glazman 6/3/12 12:30 PM
Le 03/06/12 21:15, Morgan Hardwood a �crit :
> Hmm then I'm a little confused:
> 1.4.1 has what looks like a generic x86_64 tarball available without svn:
> http://bluegriffon.org/freshmeat/1.4.1/BlueGriffon-1.4.1-Linux-x86_64.tar.bz2

You said "source tarball". This is not a source tarball but a binary
one.

</Daniel>
Re: [BlueGriffon] source tarball Morgan Hardwood 6/3/12 1:47 PM
Yes, I was wrong about that.
Where do I get a generic binary tarball from?

On Sunday, June 3, 2012 8:30:29 PM UTC+1, Daniel Glazman wrote:
Le 03/06/12 21:15, Morgan Hardwood a �crit :
> Hmm then I'm a little confused:
> 1.4.1 has what looks like a generic x86_64 tarball available without svn:
> http://bluegriffon.org/freshmeat/1.4.1/BlueGriffon-1.4.1-Linux-x86_64.tar.bz2

You said "source tarball". This is not a source tarball but a binary
one.

</Daniel>
Re: [BlueGriffon] source tarball Morgan Hardwood 6/4/12 8:02 PM
Where do non-Ubuntu and non-Fedora users get a BlueGriffon build from?


On Sunday, June 3, 2012 8:30:29 PM UTC+1, Daniel Glazman wrote:
Le 03/06/12 21:15, Morgan Hardwood a �crit :
> Hmm then I'm a little confused:
> 1.4.1 has what looks like a generic x86_64 tarball available without svn:
> http://bluegriffon.org/freshmeat/1.4.1/BlueGriffon-1.4.1-Linux-x86_64.tar.bz2

You said "source tarball". This is not a source tarball but a binary
one.

</Daniel>
Re: [BlueGriffon] source tarball peacenik 6/5/12 5:18 AM
I run Slackware. I used to use the svn to build BlueGriffon before, but since a while back , I've just used the binary and it works fine. I use the Ubuntu binary. you can un-tar it wherever you want and if you want to put a symbolic link in your path for executables, you can do that. 
It's been a while since I tried building it from source (ver 0.8 I think), but I found that the results were no better than the executable and since I just use BlueGriffon to check things, I found that I saved time just using the executable.
I'm tending to use a lot of other tools for stuff BlueGriffon should do, but I just can't in good conscience support the add-ons for money model that BlueGriffon's adopted. Ultimately, I find that a series of scripts, a good editing programme with highlighting and the "tidy" application is what I end up using for doing a lot of stuff.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "bluegriffon" group.
To post to this group, send email to blueg...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
bluegriffon...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/bluegriffon?hl=en

Re: [BlueGriffon] source tarball Daniel Glazman 6/5/12 5:20 AM
Le 05/06/12 14:18, Didier Charles a �crit :

> I'm tending to use a lot of other tools for stuff BlueGriffon should do,
> but I just can't in good conscience support the add-ons for money model
> that BlueGriffon's adopted.

Sorry to ask, but what hurts you in that model? Just the fact you have
to pay for something and the fact I am trying to make a living from my
(hard) work, or is it more complex than that?
If you take for instance the CSS Pro Editor, it represents almost 6
months of hard work and it's sold 9.99�... Don't tell me the cost of
two beers is expensive for six months of work?

</Daniel>
Re: [BlueGriffon] source tarball peacenik 6/5/12 5:59 AM
I was simply answering the question about what people using Linux distros other than the ones listed in the download section do. There was no intent to cause offence and I apologise if it struck you that way. You're free to adopt this model, and I reserve the right to not adopt it. It's not a question of something hurting me. I have a preference for the true open-source model of development. I think that ultimately it serves everyone best. I think that the discovery and solution of bugs and other improvements is benefited by the open-source model. Perhaps as BlueGriffon develops there will be some community developed add-ons that people will be able to choose (or maybe add-on from the rest of the Mozilla family will be integrated as it was with Kompozer). This is perhaps not the place for a discussion about the benefits (or more precisely the lack thereof) of the so-called market economy and that wasn't my intent when posting before.

On 5 June 2012 08:20, Daniel Glazman <daniel....@gmail.com> wrote:
Le 05/06/12 14:18, Didier Charles a écrit :


I'm tending to use a lot of other tools for stuff BlueGriffon should do,
but I just can't in good conscience support the add-ons for money model
that BlueGriffon's adopted.

Sorry to ask, but what hurts you in that model? Just the fact you have
to pay for something and the fact I am trying to make a living from my
(hard) work, or is it more complex than that?
If you take for instance the CSS Pro Editor, it represents almost 6
months of hard work and it's sold 9.99€... Don't tell me the cost of

two beers is expensive for six months of work?


</Daniel>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "bluegriffon" group.
To post to this group, send email to blueg...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
bluegriffon...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/bluegriffon?hl=en