From: <jd...@hc...> - 2004-09-30 08:53:55
|
I am trying to get ROX to work on MacOS X. I have been mostly successful after a lot of wrangling. Here are my issues that hopefully somebody can shed light on: ROX-Session's Makefile doesn't handle my machine name properly ("Darwin-Power Macintosh") with spaces. I had to hard code it, and other problems with the way it was laid out. OroboROX and ROX-Filer have no problems such as these. ROX-Session assumes the name of the dbus loadable at runtim (dylib on osx not .so, FIXED - changes forthcoming). I had to make modifications to OroboROX to get it to compile (changes are forth coming once I figure out what I did). I can't find a 'good' way of exiting out of ROX. There seems to be a crap load of messages appearing on, they look like debug messages. I certainly do not want these around. But no idea how to turn them off. The title of windows seem to be garbled when selecting another window. -- Would anyone be interested in replacement build scripts so that scons is used instead of Makefiles and configure? scons is done in Python and should be ultimately better. (This is assuming I can pull it off ;-) That should be all here. - Jeff |
From: Thomas L. <ta...@ec...> - 2004-09-30 12:54:52
|
On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 08:53:41AM -0000, jd...@hc... wrote: > I am trying to get ROX to work on MacOS X. I have been mostly successful > after a lot of wrangling. > > Here are my issues that hopefully somebody can shed light on: > > ROX-Session's Makefile doesn't handle my machine name properly > ("Darwin-Power Macintosh") with spaces. I had to hard code it, and other > problems with the way it was laid out. OroboROX and ROX-Filer have no > problems such as these. ROX-Session probably just has an older version of the Makefile that the filer uses, so it should be easy to update it from that. > ROX-Session assumes the name of the dbus loadable at runtim (dylib on osx > not .so, FIXED - changes forthcoming). Thanks. For non-Linux systems, we can probably just require D-BUS 0.21 or later. The dlopen stuff is really for Fedora, since they supply an older version of D-BUS, which can't be easily upgraded. > Would anyone be interested in replacement build scripts so that scons is > used instead of Makefiles and configure? For ROX-Session, sure (it already depends on Python). For the filer, I don't think it's worth the extra build dependancy. -- Thomas Leonard http://rox.sourceforge.net tal at ecs.soton.ac.uk tal197 at users.sourceforge.net GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6 8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1 |
From: Alastair P. <ala...@li...> - 2004-10-02 02:59:43
|
On Thu, 2004-09-30 at 13:51 +0100, Thomas Leonard wrote: > > Would anyone be interested in replacement build scripts so that scons i= s > > used instead of Makefiles and configure? >=20 > For ROX-Session, sure (it already depends on Python). For the filer, I > don't think it's worth the extra build dependancy. That would involve people that want to compile their own rox-session to install scons first. How common is it? Is this a dependancy that is worth introducing? Alastair --=20 (o< - A l a s t a i r P o r t e r //\ =20 V_/_ ala...@li... |
From: Thomas L. <ta...@ec...> - 2004-10-02 16:59:48
|
On Sat, Oct 02, 2004 at 02:58:44PM +1200, Alastair Porter wrote: > On Thu, 2004-09-30 at 13:51 +0100, Thomas Leonard wrote: > > > Would anyone be interested in replacement build scripts so that scons is > > > used instead of Makefiles and configure? > > > > For ROX-Session, sure (it already depends on Python). For the filer, I > > don't think it's worth the extra build dependancy. > That would involve people that want to compile their own rox-session to > install scons first. How common is it? Is this a dependancy that is > worth introducing? It's pretty small. I'd just stick it in ROX-Lib (which ROX-Session depends on anyway). -- Thomas Leonard http://rox.sourceforge.net tal at ecs.soton.ac.uk tal197 at users.sourceforge.net GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6 8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1 |
From: Alastair P. <ala...@li...> - 2004-10-02 23:40:38
|
On Sat, 2004-10-02 at 17:57 +0100, Thomas Leonard wrote: > On Sat, Oct 02, 2004 at 02:58:44PM +1200, Alastair Porter wrote: > > On Thu, 2004-09-30 at 13:51 +0100, Thomas Leonard wrote: > > > > Would anyone be interested in replacement build scripts so that sco= ns is > > > > used instead of Makefiles and configure? > > >=20 > > > For ROX-Session, sure (it already depends on Python). For the filer, = I > > > don't think it's worth the extra build dependancy. > > That would involve people that want to compile their own rox-session to > > install scons first. How common is it? Is this a dependancy that is > > worth introducing? >=20 > It's pretty small. I'd just stick it in ROX-Lib (which ROX-Session depend= s > on anyway). Hmmm, you can include it like that? Cool :-) --=20 (o< - A l a s t a i r P o r t e r //\ =20 V_/_ ala...@li... |
From: Thomas L. <ta...@ec...> - 2004-10-03 16:23:35
|
On Sun, Oct 03, 2004 at 12:16:09PM +1300, Alastair Porter wrote: > On Sat, 2004-10-02 at 17:57 +0100, Thomas Leonard wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 02, 2004 at 02:58:44PM +1200, Alastair Porter wrote: > > > On Thu, 2004-09-30 at 13:51 +0100, Thomas Leonard wrote: > > > > > Would anyone be interested in replacement build scripts so that > > > > > scons is used instead of Makefiles and configure? > > > > > > > > For ROX-Session, sure (it already depends on Python). For the filer, I > > > > don't think it's worth the extra build dependancy. > > > That would involve people that want to compile their own rox-session to > > > install scons first. How common is it? Is this a dependancy that is > > > worth introducing? > > > > It's pretty small. I'd just stick it in ROX-Lib (which ROX-Session depends > > on anyway). > Hmmm, you can include it like that? Cool :-) Actually, it's about 277 K, so it would about triple the size of ROX-Lib. I guess most distributions have it (Debian does, at least)? Can someone confirm for the other major ones? I can put a version up on zero install too, so users with that don't need to worry. Getting away from the auto* tools can only be a good thing ;-) -- Thomas Leonard http://rox.sourceforge.net tal at ecs.soton.ac.uk tal197 at users.sourceforge.net GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6 8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1 |
From: Alastair P. <ala...@li...> - 2004-10-04 07:33:16
|
On Sun, 2004-10-03 at 17:21 +0100, Thomas Leonard wrote: > > > It's pretty small. I'd just stick it in ROX-Lib (which ROX-Session de= pends > > > on anyway). > > Hmmm, you can include it like that? Cool :-) >=20 > Actually, it's about 277 K, so it would about triple the size of ROX-Lib. > I guess most distributions have it (Debian does, at least)? Can someone > confirm for the other major ones? Fedora Core doesn't come with it, but it is installable from a 3rd party re= pository (i have it installed at the moment) > I can put a version up on zero install too, so users with that don't need > to worry. Getting away from the auto* tools can only be a good thing ;-) Hmm, this would be cool :-) Alastair --=20 (o< - A l a s t a i r P o r t e r //\ =20 V_/_ ala...@li... |
From: <pi...@wg...> - 2004-10-04 08:36:09
|
On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 08:32:51PM +1300, Alastair Porter wrote: > On Sun, 2004-10-03 at 17:21 +0100, Thomas Leonard wrote: > > > > > It's pretty small. I'd just stick it in ROX-Lib (which ROX-Session depends > > > > on anyway). > > > Hmmm, you can include it like that? Cool :-) > > > > Actually, it's about 277 K, so it would about triple the size of ROX-Lib. > > I guess most distributions have it (Debian does, at least)? Can someone > > confirm for the other major ones? > Fedora Core doesn't come with it, but it is installable from a 3rd party repository (i have it installed at the moment) > > > I can put a version up on zero install too, so users with that don't need > > to worry. Getting away from the auto* tools can only be a good thing ;-) > Hmm, this would be cool :-) ACK, i mean it. peter. |