Menu
▾
▴
grapevine-devel — Mailing list for Grapevine developers
You can subscribe to this list here.
| 2001 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
(8) |
Oct
(90) |
Nov
(216) |
Dec
(115) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2002 |
Jan
(116) |
Feb
(53) |
Mar
(22) |
Apr
(58) |
May
(29) |
Jun
(34) |
Jul
(16) |
Aug
(16) |
Sep
(39) |
Oct
(43) |
Nov
(18) |
Dec
(28) |
| 2003 |
Jan
(3) |
Feb
(4) |
Mar
(11) |
Apr
(23) |
May
(13) |
Jun
(8) |
Jul
(6) |
Aug
(1) |
Sep
|
Oct
(6) |
Nov
(1) |
Dec
|
| 2004 |
Jan
(1) |
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2005 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
(4) |
Apr
(2) |
May
(1) |
Jun
(2) |
Jul
(1) |
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2006 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
(1) |
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2007 |
Jan
(3) |
Feb
(3) |
Mar
|
Apr
(2) |
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
(2) |
Aug
(5) |
Sep
(2) |
Oct
(1) |
Nov
|
Dec
(2) |
| 2008 |
Jan
(2) |
Feb
(1) |
Mar
(3) |
Apr
(1) |
May
(1) |
Jun
(2) |
Jul
(7) |
Aug
|
Sep
(9) |
Oct
(5) |
Nov
(19) |
Dec
(31) |
| 2009 |
Jan
(13) |
Feb
(13) |
Mar
(10) |
Apr
(22) |
May
(39) |
Jun
(17) |
Jul
(34) |
Aug
(6) |
Sep
(1) |
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
(8) |
| 2010 |
Jan
(5) |
Feb
(7) |
Mar
|
Apr
(1) |
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
(1) |
Aug
|
Sep
(1) |
Oct
(2) |
Nov
|
Dec
|
|
From: Anthony J. <aj...@cl...> - 2003-05-05 15:54:31
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Some of the world's largest record labels are quietly financing the creation of programs by small software firms that, if deployed, would sabotage the computers and Internet connections of people who download pirated music, a newspaper reported Sunday. http://www.mp3.org/archives/000015.html - --- These kinds of companies can take the record companies money and be totally unaccountable. How are they going to prove any success? TJ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+tojxd+IOCdhCut8RAk7JAJ9G/AX3UPcqGkI1BCByFYPji+tJjgCcCrEP UfTF0m58Llc5eq7JhWG9Slw= =Q7rp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
|
From: Stephen B. <st...@bl...> - 2003-05-01 23:15:19
|
=2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 All, With Ben's help, I have made another improvement to the bootstrap code. Th= e=20 changes are sufficiently important that I've decided to make a release late= r=20 today, when I have managed to test it a bit. I can't contact Sourceforge's= =20 servers at the moment for some reason. Reliability: The executable as been as solid as a rock since 1.0.3, which = is=20 great news. Steve =2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE+saqAODO5z8eA7sQRAndFAJ47siw9Meath5c1+myUHMC/nwyFHQCeOUBw BzyvBEc9eb5zFRUZ1BiCs8g=3D =3Dlu4y =2D----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
|
From: Stephen B. <st...@bl...> - 2003-05-01 10:51:51
|
=2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 All & Ross, I've made some improvements to the bootstrap code and checked them in. The= =20 existing (1.0.3) software won't run code stored locally if it can't contact= =20 the net, which could be annoying. This is what I fixed. There's no hurry to release this, but, Ross - perhaps I could release a new= =20 version for Debian whenever you're ready to release the Windows version=20 again. Let me know if you can't reproduce the bug I had with the Windows=20 code, and I'll have another go. I've changed the version to 1.0.4 in CVS. I'm tagging every release, too, so please tag if you make a 1.0.4 release. Steve =2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE+sPw/ODO5z8eA7sQRAkSKAJsFbzSz1XItbSrJpkkKC67yrH9ViQCbBt35 jRH0FYBWAGtkWMpW5kUOKA0=3D =3DR6En =2D----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
|
From: Stephen B. <st...@bl...> - 2003-05-01 01:59:58
|
=2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 To all you patient and kind people who are helping me test the Grapevine: It seems there are a few bugs in it, so it's sometimes failing to communica= te=20 when it should be communicating. It seems to be getting its session keys=20 mixed up. I'll sort these out over the coming days. I've put some code in to purge any IP addresses that haven't been successfu= lly=20 contacted for 3 days. This will prevent us annoying people who try the=20 Grapevine and then go away. Of course you won't need to re-install your software - this will happen=20 automatically. Steve =2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE+sH+UODO5z8eA7sQRAn2qAKCGBzAusPVffhKA2rMCDALAlx8ygQCdH3jh oFbzAwZuDEMveqSAb8KtwyU=3D =3DFH5U =2D----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
|
From: Stephen B. <st...@bl...> - 2003-05-01 01:39:01
|
=2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 To the person from China who is testing grapevine. I just tried contacting your IP address directly and I am getting no reply= =20 packets, so that's why grapevine isn't working. It's some kind of firewall= =20 or proxying issue. I'm going to put some new code in that determines an IP= =20 address by asking other nodes what they see. So hopefully this should sort= =20 it out. Send me an email if you like. Steve =2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE+sHqqODO5z8eA7sQRAoXfAKCZD6uWkk6T+ynEPHeTx8haZ9c4VgCeI4TR Oxw6lMUE+TH1M8VnU2NCNIw=3D =3DZQ7R =2D----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
|
From: Stephen B. <st...@bl...> - 2003-04-30 01:47:46
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ross, OOPS!! Windows 2000 Professional 5.00.2195. Steve On Wed, 30 Apr 2003 13:42, Ross Smith II wrote: > > From: gra...@li... > > [mailto:gra...@li...]On Behalf Of Stephen > > Blackheath > > > > On Wed, 30 Apr 2003 13:21, you wrote: > > > What version? > > > > The version grapevine-1.0.3-2.exe off the Download page. > > I meant, what version of Windows? :) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE+rys8ODO5z8eA7sQRAqboAKCBmA31vUMyrGKkvZStUCe3FhxizACfecQm E2t1yQL2WGGZpalQxEYnXD8= =vYYp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
|
From: Ross S. I. <ro...@sm...> - 2003-04-30 01:40:54
|
> From: gra...@li... > [mailto:gra...@li...]On Behalf Of Stephen > Blackheath > On Wed, 30 Apr 2003 13:21, you wrote: > > > > What version? > > The version grapevine-1.0.3-2.exe off the Download page. I meant, what version of Windows? :) |
|
From: Stephen B. <st...@bl...> - 2003-04-30 01:26:07
|
=2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ross, On Wed, 30 Apr 2003 13:21, you wrote: > > From: gra...@li... > > [mailto:gra...@li...]On Behalf Of Stephen > > Blackheath > > Ross, > > > > I'm not the only one who found that the Windows version you packaged up > > won't bootstrap... > > What version? The version grapevine-1.0.3-2.exe off the Download page. > > Some kind (but anonymous) person submitted bug 727482 about this. > > > > https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=3Ddetail&aid=3D727482&gr= oup_id > >=3D32439&atid=3D405158 > > Gosh. It worked for me fine on Windows 2000. I'll test it on XP Home > tonight and XP Pro tommorrow and see if I can duplicate the problem. Try deleting grapevine.dbm first. It may be that when you ran it, it was=20 using the code that was already stored in grapevine.dbm (so it skipped the= =20 download part). If you re-package, don't forget to change it to show the WARNING document=20 instead of the COPYING document when installing. Steve =2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE+ryYoODO5z8eA7sQRAkd+AJ9Z+OBW1iOhZsFUV63LtR+vOfgOdACgkEVR 6iyGVgejYNAIUfepmb+p1E4=3D =3DtXB0 =2D----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
|
From: Ross S. I. <ro...@sm...> - 2003-04-30 01:19:57
|
> From: gra...@li... > [mailto:gra...@li...]On Behalf Of Stephen > Blackheath > Ross, > > I'm not the only one who found that the Windows version you packaged up won't > bootstrap... What version? > Some kind (but anonymous) person submitted bug 727482 about this. > > https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=727482&group_id=32439&atid=405158 Gosh. It worked for me fine on Windows 2000. I'll test it on XP Home tonight and XP Pro tommorrow and see if I can duplicate the problem. -Ross |
|
From: Stephen B. <st...@bl...> - 2003-04-30 01:17:09
|
=2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 All, Ben is a friend of mine in Auckland who has taken an interest in the projec= t=20 and helped out in various ways. I made him a member of the project. I've also ruthlessly deleted all the users that have contributed nothing or= =20 next to nothing. Any of those I have deleted can be added again if they=20 contribute something. Steve On Wed, 30 Apr 2003 13:04, Ross Smith II wrote: > > From: Ben Martel [mailto:be...@sy...] > > > > Ross, > > > > I wanted to know why you changed the definition of line 150 in > > BerkDB.cpp to: > > > > (DB_TXN *) db, fileName.c_str(), NULL, DB_BTREE, (unsigned > > int)DB_CREATE, 0600); > > > > I am using DB3.9.5 and I can't see why the API would want a DB_TXN for > > this argument. Did you mean to do this? It doesnr't compile under Debian > > with this as it stands. Removal of the cast fixes the problem. > > Ben, > > I did that so it would compile under MSVC, but since it won't *link* under > MSVC ATM, I'm using cygwin. > > I'll wrap an #ifdef _DAMN_STUPID_WINDOWS around the offending code :). > > Thanks for the heads up, > > Ross > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek > Welcome to geek heaven. > http://thinkgeek.com/sf > _______________________________________________ > Grapevine-devel mailing list > Gra...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/grapevine-devel =2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE+ryQOODO5z8eA7sQRAoRVAJ90lRynYs4rkgcVVK2hDfLbPFaaLACbBnoj NLZeyHhmLu+Lrm0Py/iMy1g=3D =3DlWKI =2D----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
|
From: Ross S. I. <ro...@sm...> - 2003-04-30 01:02:33
|
> From: Ben Martel [mailto:be...@sy...] > > Ross, > > I wanted to know why you changed the definition of line 150 in > BerkDB.cpp to: > > (DB_TXN *) db, fileName.c_str(), NULL, DB_BTREE, (unsigned > int)DB_CREATE, 0600); > > I am using DB3.9.5 and I can't see why the API would want a DB_TXN for > this argument. Did you mean to do this? It doesnr't compile under Debian > with this as it stands. Removal of the cast fixes the problem. Ben, I did that so it would compile under MSVC, but since it won't *link* under MSVC ATM, I'm using cygwin. I'll wrap an #ifdef _DAMN_STUPID_WINDOWS around the offending code :). Thanks for the heads up, Ross |
|
From: Stephen B. <st...@bl...> - 2003-04-29 22:43:44
|
=2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ross, I'm not the only one who found that the Windows version you packaged up won= 't=20 bootstrap... Some kind (but anonymous) person submitted bug 727482 about this. https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=3Ddetail&aid=3D727482&group_= id=3D32439&atid=3D405158 Steve =2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE+rwAUODO5z8eA7sQRAllMAJ4i/VYsqKcplBnE77UBcrNWNUcjxQCfaICa JghaMHyBO9FV9dOhqrEYqhg=3D =3DQI/L =2D----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
|
From: Ross S. I. <ro...@sm...> - 2003-04-25 03:03:46
|
> From: gra...@li... > [mailto:gra...@li...]On Behalf Of Stephen > Blackheath > > Ross - I tried the Windows package you made, and it didn't work! It > complained about a failure in XML parsing. Works for me (win 2k sp3): <http://grapevine.netebb.com/screenshot_win32.gif> If you have cygwin installed, you may have .dll conflicts with the files in c:\program files\grapevine. That's the nature of windows. I haven't punched a hole in my firewall, so you won't be able to connect to it just it. Getting there. > When I have some time, I'll do > some more investigation. Can we also have the WARNING document instead of > the COPYING one upon install next time you package it? Sure. -Ross |
|
From: Stephen B. <st...@bl...> - 2003-04-25 02:11:48
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Bishop & Ross, Thanks for your help! I certainly appreciate the RedHat packaging. I got an email from someone else who had the same problem - and I've had it too in various configurations. I don't know the answer, but I'm sure it can be solved. I converted the autoconf/automake to the newer version (because it essentially forced me to). I have to say I have my criticisms of it. I got it building on RedHat 8.0 and Debian woody with no configuration parameters. One thing you could try is seeing if RedHat 7.3 has an autoconf2.5 package available. Ross - I tried the Windows package you made, and it didn't work! It complained about a failure in XML parsing. When I have some time, I'll do some more investigation. Can we also have the WARNING document instead of the COPYING one upon install next time you package it? I'm going to leave packaging to you guys mostly now. I want to concentrate on getting the application itself working. Steve On Fri, 25 Apr 2003 12:35, Ross Smith II wrote: > > From: bishop [mailto:bi...@pl...] > > > > Ross, > > > > The funny thing is that I'm not explicitly running any autoconf myself; > > it all seems to be run by my ./configure invocation. At least, that > > part of the setup goes well. > > > > The first thing MAKE does, though, is wander back into autoconf land, > > and I neveer even thought of that so long ago last night. I'll see > > about inhibiting this behaviour, and see what kind of trouble I can get > > myself into. I'm confused as to why it'd do configure bits in Make, to > > be sure, but I'm not the expert in this (as you may know). > > Bish, > > MAKE will sometimes rerun autoconf/configure if it senses that the > underlying build files have changed. > > Unfortunately, my guess is you don't have autoconf 2.5x, but 1.x, so the > whole thing fails. > > IMHO, the whole autoconf/automake mess sucks big time. > > -Ross > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek > Welcome to geek heaven. > http://thinkgeek.com/sf > _______________________________________________ > Grapevine-devel mailing list > Gra...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/grapevine-devel -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE+qJldODO5z8eA7sQRAndWAJ4hHALnVMAd+Cn2e15+haJwINfwbQCfTe/r VF4z6VlySvECwF/Sw7Wpxzg= =0+hn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
|
From: Ross S. I. <ro...@sm...> - 2003-04-25 00:33:03
|
> From: bishop [mailto:bi...@pl...] > > Ross, > > The funny thing is that I'm not explicitly running any autoconf myself; > it all seems to be run by my ./configure invocation. At least, that > part of the setup goes well. > > The first thing MAKE does, though, is wander back into autoconf land, > and I neveer even thought of that so long ago last night. I'll see > about inhibiting this behaviour, and see what kind of trouble I can get > myself into. I'm confused as to why it'd do configure bits in Make, to > be sure, but I'm not the expert in this (as you may know). Bish, MAKE will sometimes rerun autoconf/configure if it senses that the underlying build files have changed. Unfortunately, my guess is you don't have autoconf 2.5x, but 1.x, so the whole thing fails. IMHO, the whole autoconf/automake mess sucks big time. -Ross |
|
From: bishop <bi...@pl...> - 2003-04-25 00:01:37
|
Ross, The funny thing is that I'm not explicitly running any autoconf myself; it all seems to be run by my ./configure invocation. At least, that part of the setup goes well. The first thing MAKE does, though, is wander back into autoconf land, and I neveer even thought of that so long ago last night. I'll see about inhibiting this behaviour, and see what kind of trouble I can get myself into. I'm confused as to why it'd do configure bits in Make, to be sure, but I'm not the expert in this (as you may know). - bish Ross Smith II wrote: >>From: gra...@li... >>[mailto:gra...@li...]On Behalf Of bishop >> >>I'm an annoying RPM packager guy, and GrapeVine has snared the deficit I >>call my attention. >> >>I'm off trying to package the beast on RH73, which is my current gateway >>system, and it's hating itself. My standard %configure step seems to go >>off without a hitch, doing the usual "checking for this.....yes" dance. >> Here's my summary, FWIW: > > >>>cd . && autoconf >>>autoconf: configure.in: No such file or directory >>>make: *** [configure] Error 1 >>>error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.92472 (%build) > > > Bish, > > Thanks for the effort. We really appreciate the help. > > configure.in is used by autoconf 1.x. Grapevine uses configure.ac which is autoconf 2.x. > > There are a couple of possible solutions: > > 1. Upgrade/install autoconf 2.5x. > > 2. Don't autoconf at all but simply use the pre-made ./configure file. > > 3. Copy configure.ac to configure.in and rewrite any .ac specific features. This solution sucks 'cause we'd have to keep the two > separate files in sync. Definately not fun. > > Once you get it working (do you like my positivity?), send us the .spec file and we'll add it to CVS. > > Cheers, > > -Ross > > |
|
From: Ross S. I. <ro...@sm...> - 2003-04-24 14:20:18
|
> From: gra...@li... > [mailto:gra...@li...]On Behalf Of bishop > > I'm an annoying RPM packager guy, and GrapeVine has snared the deficit I > call my attention. > > I'm off trying to package the beast on RH73, which is my current gateway > system, and it's hating itself. My standard %configure step seems to go > off without a hitch, doing the usual "checking for this.....yes" dance. > Here's my summary, FWIW: > > cd . && autoconf > > autoconf: configure.in: No such file or directory > > make: *** [configure] Error 1 > > error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.92472 (%build) Bish, Thanks for the effort. We really appreciate the help. configure.in is used by autoconf 1.x. Grapevine uses configure.ac which is autoconf 2.x. There are a couple of possible solutions: 1. Upgrade/install autoconf 2.5x. 2. Don't autoconf at all but simply use the pre-made ./configure file. 3. Copy configure.ac to configure.in and rewrite any .ac specific features. This solution sucks 'cause we'd have to keep the two separate files in sync. Definately not fun. Once you get it working (do you like my positivity?), send us the .spec file and we'll add it to CVS. Cheers, -Ross |
|
From: bishop <bi...@pl...> - 2003-04-24 11:49:23
|
Hey Folks, I'm an annoying RPM packager guy, and GrapeVine has snared the deficit I call my attention. I'm off trying to package the beast on RH73, which is my current gateway system, and it's hating itself. My standard %configure step seems to go off without a hitch, doing the usual "checking for this.....yes" dance. Here's my summary, FWIW: > > > VERSION: GrapevineC++Engine-1.0.3 > LANGUAGE_VER: 1.0 > > CXX: i386-redhat-linux-g++ > CPPFLAGS: -I/usr/include > CXXFLAGS: -march=i386 -mcpu=i686 -D_REENTRANT -DNDEBUG > LIBS: -lpthread -lm -lexpat -ldb2 > LDFLAGS: -L/usr/lib > target: i386-redhat-linux (cpu=, vendor=, os=) > doc directory: > lib directory: > ac_lib_ldadd: > ac_lib_ldflags: > > optimize: yes > debug: > debug_flag: > debug_info: > debug_gdb: > warnings: > profile: > dmalloc: > > includes: > crypto++: include=/home/bishop/RPM/BUILD/grapevine-1.0.3/cryptopp/cryptopp, lib=/home/bishop/RPM/BUILD/grapevine-1.0.3/cryptopp/cryptopp, libn\ > ame=cryptopp > db: include=/usr/include, lib=/usr/lib, libname=db2 > expat: include=/usr/local/include, lib=/usr/local/lib, libname=expat > > xmllint: xmllint --valid --postvalid --noout However, the 'make' invocation seems to fizzle out like a wet bottle rocket: > Executing(%build): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.92472 > + umask 022 > + cd /home/bishop/RPM/BUILD > + cd grapevine-1.0.3 > + /usr/bin/make > cd . && aclocal > cd . && automake --gnu Makefile > cd . \ > && CONFIG_FILES=Makefile CONFIG_HEADERS= /bin/sh ./config.status > config.status: creating Makefile > config.status: executing default-1 commands > cd . && autoconf > autoconf: configure.in: No such file or directory > make: *** [configure] Error 1 > error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.92472 (%build) Obviously, the lack of a configure.in is a bit of a sticky bit for the build. Unfortunately, at no time that I noticed is there actually sucha file in place where we'd expect it to be. My big bad (burned-board) build box is a pretty stock RH73, packages all the way (no c;m;mi at all), and because of compatibility with other RH73s, I've kept the package set 'stock'. It should be a simple box to duplicate, if necessary 8-) Anyone got any pointers on the situation my build got itself into above? With Autofoo stuff, I'm useless like flippers on a groundhog; I'm in a bit of a hole here, and I'd love a pointer or two. But don't take too much time out of your day. I'm on a week off, and I'm just playing about, mainly. http://flotsam.platypus.bc.ca/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/bishop/cvsbuild-patches/grapevine/grapevine.spec?rev=HEAD&content-type=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup Nothing new, unfinished, but there it is. What other info can I provide? - bish -- "Every well-bred petty crook knows -- the small concealable weapons always go to the far left of the place setting." -- Inara (Morena Baccarin), "Firefly" (unaired - into production AFTER fox crushed it) |
|
From: Stephen B. <st...@bl...> - 2003-04-23 22:07:34
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 All, > So - The Wright brothers were definitely the first to achieve powered > flight in the USA. OOPS - I meant... So - The Wright brothers (in the USA) were definitely the first to achieve powered flight. Steve On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 10:04, Stephen Blackheath wrote: > All, > > There's a good letter in the New Zealand Listener this week that explains > what Richard Pearse did. Excerpts: > > "Certainly, Perase did not understand the concept of 'lift' in wing design" > > "But his further comment that his aircraft 'would spin round broadside > directly it left the ground', combined with sworn affidavits from some 21 > persons who observed Pearse airborne in one flight attempt or other, make > it clear that Pearse was at least achieving powered take-offs. Most of > these may be dated circumstantially 1903-05, leaving Pearse easily the > first in the British Empire to become airborne in a heavier-than-air > machine." > > The Wright brothers flew on 17 December, 1903. > > So - The Wright brothers were definitely the first to achieve powered > flight in the USA. > > Richard Pearse (NZ) MAY have got off the ground before that date. > > > Steve > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek > Welcome to geek heaven. > http://thinkgeek.com/sf > _______________________________________________ > Grapevine-devel mailing list > Gra...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/grapevine-devel -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE+pw6fODO5z8eA7sQRAuCFAJ902p3gIDmNdpFp/RHs0DReJEGBrACeOrie kVkpBK+OcEdj5FeIy8YvDUk= =gXxD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
|
From: Stephen B. <st...@bl...> - 2003-04-23 22:04:16
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 All, There's a good letter in the New Zealand Listener this week that explains what Richard Pearse did. Excerpts: "Certainly, Perase did not understand the concept of 'lift' in wing design" "But his further comment that his aircraft 'would spin round broadside directly it left the ground', combined with sworn affidavits from some 21 persons who observed Pearse airborne in one flight attempt or other, make it clear that Pearse was at least achieving powered take-offs. Most of these may be dated circumstantially 1903-05, leaving Pearse easily the first in the British Empire to become airborne in a heavier-than-air machine." The Wright brothers flew on 17 December, 1903. So - The Wright brothers were definitely the first to achieve powered flight in the USA. Richard Pearse (NZ) MAY have got off the ground before that date. Steve -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE+pw3XODO5z8eA7sQRAt17AKCbiuS2FJGf3f2xNIwS7sQbVdd05ACfXCn1 CrcEMZFhJcYEv1KFonDLSAs= =rNGc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
|
From: David S. W. <xi...@pr...> - 2003-04-22 23:23:25
|
Y'ALL ROCK ~DAVID Stephen Blackheath wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >All, > >I put in a submission to Freshmeat, which was accepted, so now we're on the >front page for a little while. > >Version 1.0.3 continues to be reliable on Debian. > >A couple of people have installed nodes so far. I'm very happy! > > >Steve >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) >Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org > >iD8DBQE+pbebODO5z8eA7sQRApAIAJ4+GvYin2GbmVmbkMXnxE1/z7V20wCfSq/M >LdyVzmED5p3X9xRD+q5pb0U= >=EAxV >-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > >------------------------------------------------------- >This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek >Welcome to geek heaven. >http://thinkgeek.com/sf >_______________________________________________ >Grapevine-devel mailing list >Gra...@li... >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/grapevine-devel > > > -- ~Dave xi...@pr... Brainchild (and current obsession) http://dustyscript.sourceforge.net/ >Dustyscript: Programming for Children< ||*Other projects that I head up*|| http://sourceforge.net/projects/cxtable >The xTable Project<< http://sourceforge.net/projects/moonroof >Moonroof, a Java desktop< ||**Projects that I am dedicated to (but not in charge of)*|| http://sourceforge.net/projects/grapevine >Grapevine p2p network< "The Java Port" http://sourceforge.net/projects/symbiosis >Symbiosis< weblog: http://wildegrey.blogspot.com/ "When I think back on all the crap I learned in High School... it's a wonder I can think at all..." -Paul Simon, "Kodachrome" "...I took the road less travelled by, and that has made all the difference.." -Robert Frost "Man is the only animal that blushes... or needs to" -Mark Twain |
|
From: Stephen B. <st...@bl...> - 2003-04-22 22:52:27
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ross, Thank you so much! I'll fix the website now. I'll give it a bit of a test tonight and see if I can fix the problem with not getting the correct IP address. Steve On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 10:42, Ross Smith II wrote: > Steve, > > I published the Cygwin/Release build to sf.net: > > http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=32439 > > I named it > > grapevine-1.0.3-2.exe > > As when I tried to upload > > grapevine-1.0.3.exe > > it barfed and I couldn't overwrite the 0 byte file. > > Do you want to update the web site to remove the "windows soon" verbage, or > should I? > > > From: Stephen Blackheath [mailto:st...@bl...] > > > > That's annoying! Cygwin it will have to be! I haven't changed anything > > to do with XML parsing for many months. > > Nothing you did. Just MSVC being whiny. > > -Ross -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE+pcejODO5z8eA7sQRAj15AKCbjpu3IlHlr9JOG7WWby3sxeaI/QCeIAoZ XNQ2kh9yM9Cz/aHATUSaq3g= =lvDE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
|
From: Ross S. I. <ro...@sm...> - 2003-04-22 22:40:54
|
Steve, I published the Cygwin/Release build to sf.net: http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=32439 I named it grapevine-1.0.3-2.exe As when I tried to upload grapevine-1.0.3.exe it barfed and I couldn't overwrite the 0 byte file. Do you want to update the web site to remove the "windows soon" verbage, or should I? > From: Stephen Blackheath [mailto:st...@bl...] > > That's annoying! Cygwin it will have to be! I haven't changed anything to do > with XML parsing for many months. Nothing you did. Just MSVC being whiny. -Ross |
|
From: Stephen B. <st...@bl...> - 2003-04-22 21:59:01
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ross, That's annoying! Cygwin it will have to be! I haven't changed anything to do with XML parsing for many months. I need to fix the Raisen code a little bit to make it so that nodes that don't know their own IP addresses can work properly. This includes * Windows 98 systems. * Any machine that is behind a firewall where the user is using port forwarding. I'll fix it by making it ask other nodes - "Hey - what's my IP address?". I might just make it trust the most commonly received answer. Steve On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 09:49, Ross Smith II wrote: > Gang, > > I have updated my MSVC build to use Crypto++ 5.1, DB 4.1.25 and expat > 1.95.6. > > No matter what I do, I now get: > > Linking... > ParseXML.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol > __imp__XML_ParserFree RuleBase.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external > symbol __imp__XML_ParserFree ParseXML.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved > external symbol __imp__XML_Parse RuleBase.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved > external symbol __imp__XML_Parse ParseXML.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved > external symbol __imp__XML_SetCharacterDataHandler RuleBase.obj : error > LNK2001: unresolved external symbol __imp__XML_SetCharacterDataHandler > ParseXML.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol > __imp__XML_SetElementHandler RuleBase.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved > external symbol __imp__XML_SetElementHandler ParseXML.obj : error LNK2001: > unresolved external symbol __imp__XML_SetUserData RuleBase.obj : error > LNK2001: unresolved external symbol __imp__XML_SetUserData ParseXML.obj : > error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol __imp__XML_ParserCreate > RuleBase.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol > __imp__XML_ParserCreate RuleBase.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external > symbol __imp__XML_ErrorString RuleBase.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved > external symbol __imp__XML_GetCurrentLineNumber RuleSAXHandler.obj : error > LNK2001: unresolved external symbol __imp__XML_GetCurrentLineNumber > RuleBase.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol > __imp__XML_GetCurrentColumnNumber RuleSAXHandler.obj : error LNK2001: > unresolved external symbol __imp__XML_GetCurrentColumnNumber RuleBase.obj : > error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol __imp__XML_GetErrorCode > Debug/grapevine.exe : fatal error LNK1120: 10 unresolved externals Error > executing link.exe. > > So, I'm gonna not bother building in MSVC for now. It's always too much of > a pain. > > Cygwin builds without complaint. > > -Ross > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek > Welcome to geek heaven. > http://thinkgeek.com/sf > _______________________________________________ > Grapevine-devel mailing list > Gra...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/grapevine-devel -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE+pbsfODO5z8eA7sQRAmX6AJ9NSXy8dqjrJpIXogW2zk8oU3RTXgCff7cA 6BX7XPFjXLjP2ApyVZBgtws= =vTMU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
|
From: Ross S. I. <ro...@sm...> - 2003-04-22 21:46:58
|
Gang, I have updated my MSVC build to use Crypto++ 5.1, DB 4.1.25 and expat 1.95.6. No matter what I do, I now get: Linking... ParseXML.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol __imp__XML_ParserFree RuleBase.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol __imp__XML_ParserFree ParseXML.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol __imp__XML_Parse RuleBase.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol __imp__XML_Parse ParseXML.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol __imp__XML_SetCharacterDataHandler RuleBase.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol __imp__XML_SetCharacterDataHandler ParseXML.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol __imp__XML_SetElementHandler RuleBase.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol __imp__XML_SetElementHandler ParseXML.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol __imp__XML_SetUserData RuleBase.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol __imp__XML_SetUserData ParseXML.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol __imp__XML_ParserCreate RuleBase.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol __imp__XML_ParserCreate RuleBase.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol __imp__XML_ErrorString RuleBase.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol __imp__XML_GetCurrentLineNumber RuleSAXHandler.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol __imp__XML_GetCurrentLineNumber RuleBase.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol __imp__XML_GetCurrentColumnNumber RuleSAXHandler.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol __imp__XML_GetCurrentColumnNumber RuleBase.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol __imp__XML_GetErrorCode Debug/grapevine.exe : fatal error LNK1120: 10 unresolved externals Error executing link.exe. So, I'm gonna not bother building in MSVC for now. It's always too much of a pain. Cygwin builds without complaint. -Ross |
227 messages has been excluded from this view by a project administrator.
