2008/4/6, Tilman Hoener zu Siederdissen <thzs@...>:
> Hi Knut,
> > > 1) I think it's time to release SciDAVis 0.1.3. As I am quite busy
> > > and the next weekend, I would make the release in two weeks unless you
> > > want to do that.
> > Yes, it's time to get the latest improvements out. Unfortunately, I'm
> > a bit busy, so probably it'll have to wait two more weeks.
> ok, so I'll release v0.1.3 in two weeks.
> > > Concerning the bugs, that are still open:
> > > a) #1927200 "some peanuts...": Since we need to rewrite the dialogs
> > > 0.3.0 anyway, I would postpone these "peanuts".
> > I agree that changing the dialogs should be postponed. As for the first
> > item (no auto-rescaling when data changes), this is trivial to fix and
> > (after some consideration) I think it is valid - auto-rescaling can be
> > pretty annoying if you've spent some time fine-tuning ranges. And if you
> > really do want the scaling adjusted, you just need to press the "Best
> > button.
> Ok, good.
> > > 2) I vote for rejecting feature request #1926182 "Add third party
> > > dll's into installer". This would blow up the zips by a factor of 10
> > > more. And it teaches the wrong behavior IMHO. It's also not our job to
> > > correct the lack of a package manager on windows. I absolutely don't
> > > though if anyone else wants to provide the webspace to host these
> > > "packages" and we put a link on the homepage.
> > It would certainly be wrong for Linux, but manually downloading
> > dependencies is simply a nuisance, for those who just want to give
> > a try as well as for those who might want to install it on more than one
> > computer. Therefore I think we should follow the example of most other
> > Windows software and do make some effort to correct for the lack of a
> > package manager. Particularly since I'm not aware of any actual size
> > constraints on SF.net file releases - have I missed something?
> I just checked. It seems we only have a limit on the webspace, not in the
> download section. So, the size is not a problem.
> But what about Python, SIP, PyQt? Will it work properly if just copied
> somewhere rather than installed by their installers?
> > Mauricio has sent me an installation script for the nullsoft installer
> > (nsis.sf.net). The compiled installer is currently 17MB (roughly a
> > of 10, yes), but I think some of the libraries can be left out (Qt
> > QtSql, QtXml, static fit plugin libs). I'll try to upload a trimmed-down
> > installer this evening. If that's okay with Maurcio, I'd also like to
> > the script to SVN, adding a GPL/copyright statement (currently, there's
> > copyright or license note in the script). That way, anyone can help with
> > updating and maybe improving.
Hi, I'm agree, just add GPL statement and add the script to SVN.
There are a lot of things for to improve in the script but I just learn
about nsis scripting.
I think the installation on windows would be very easy for end users. This
people could be popular to scidavis and to report some bugs and features
requests. This would be useful for scidavis development, I guess.
> Apropos improvements: I think the best solution (short of writing a decent
> > package manager for Windows) would be to include an option in the
> > to pull Python and Qt from their official sites and include the other
> > in the distribution. Of course, someone would have to implement and
> > maintain this.
> Yes, that would be the best solution. Just like Qt does it for MinGW.
> >Until then, I think including some third-party libraries is
> > the least evil.
> What about including a HTML file with the direct links to the installers?
> So, just doubleclick the HTML file, click on the 3 or 4 links and say
> (when the browser asks) to open the executable. Wouldn't that be easy
> > > 3) In the documentation of AbtractPart::view() you have written:
> > > "Parts must not depend on the existence of a view for their
> > > At the moment this rule is broken in Table and Matrix as many methods
> > > assume that the view is created beforehand. Is there really a reason
> > > be so strict or can we change "existance" to "visibility"?
> > If this can be done without too much extra work, I'd like to keep the
> > strict formulation and adapt the relevant code. I think it helps us keep
> > clear seperation between parts and views, and it would make
> > handling of parts more efficient. Maybe it's just a case of replacing
> > method calls with signals?
> Ok, I'll adjust Table and Matrix accordingly.
> Best regards,
> This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference
> Register now and save $200. Hurry, offer ends at 11:59 p.m.,
> Monday, April 7! Use priority code J8TLD2.
> Scidavis-contributors mailing list