On Saturday 26 December 2009 16:57:33 D. Michael McIntyre wrote:
> On Saturday 26 December 2009, Heinz Wiesinger wrote:
> > Also there's a rendering issue when I maximize the main window after a
> > fresh start. It works fine if I drag the lower edge of the window
> > manually, but if I click on the maximize icon in the window decoration
> > it leaves garbage. (screenshot here:
> > http://www.liwjatan.at/files/screenshots/rosegarden-main- window.png)
> That one I can't repeat, and your setup is quite similar to mine apart from
> the gcc version. That doesn't give me anything I could compile and test
> against, so I don't have much hope of sorting that out.
> I'm left having to hope that you can get around that problem using the
> native graphics system. Try:
> ./rosegarden -graphicssystem native
> If that works, I'm going to have to revisit the idea of making the graphics
> system configurable through the preferences interface. That particular
> detail can't be stored in QSettings, so I'll have to come up with some
Indeed that works, as does -graphicssystem opengl. -graphicssystem raster
fails as well (which is probably the standard anyway)
> > Last is a package issue. "make install" runs update-mime-database at the
> > end. For packaging rosegarden I would need to patch the Makefile to
> > remove that command, because update-mime-database should be called on
> > installation of the package, and not at the end of "make install". I
> > can't really think of a better solution than patching right now, but
> > maybe someone else has a good idea on how we can avoid that.
> Is running update-mime-database out of an install target abnormal and wrong
> for every distro? I don't think I'd ever written an install target from
> scratch, and it's entirely possible that was just a stupid thing to do. I
> don't remember if our old build system used to do that at some point or
> I'll be happy to honor whatever the best standard practice is. I'm not
> trying to make life hard for maintainers.
I know two other apps that do this. One is ardour, which did this to actually
make the life of packagers easier (*cough*). I filed a bug for that aeons ago,
The other is google-gadgets, but they offer the possibility to turn it off with
"--disable-update-mime-database" as a configure parameter. Maybe that would be
a good option.
Either way, if you run update-mime-database running update-desktop-database
might be a good idea as well.
> > I can also open reports in the bugtracker if it's better located there.
> It isn't necessary to open bugs on the tracker, but I think we're at a
> point where it's OK to go ahead and start using it again, and I removed
> the "don't use the tracker yet" instructions from the latest round of
> texts I published. At this point the main thing I care about is reporting
> the bugs *somewhere* I can see them, and this was just fine. Thank you
> for the reports!
No problem :)
> > Lastly, out of curiosity, I recognized the cmake build system is gone.
> > Will it come back at some point or will you stay with autotools?
> We were all building with some static hand-written makefile for months in
> preference to anybody trying to get CMake working again. It fell on my
> shoulders to get it to go, and I was just not able to do so. Chris had an
> alternate plan for doing up a simple Autotools based build system, and we
> went with that and got it to work.
> I'm not strongly opposed to going back to CMake, but I am strongly opposed
> to having a build system that's dependent on one single individual to
> maintain. People lose interest and move away sometimes. If Chris or I
> lose interest and move away, the project is most likely dead, so if we
> have a build system both Chris and I can maintain ourselves, that's as
> close as we can come to guaranteeing somebody will always be around who
> knows how to maintain it.
> So I think we're probably sticking with Autotools, with some sad regret
> about having to dump such a nice thing as we had, and some relief about
> maintainability over time mixed in as well. After all, we're here to write
> software first, not build systems. If the thing compiles, it gets the job
Heh, this is actually the first time I heard someone saying autotools is easier
than cmake ;)
As said, I was just curious. As long as it works for you it's fine for me as
well. The only build system I hold a grudge against is waf. I really don't
understand why ardour and jack are moving that way....
Thanks for the comments!