RE: [Java-gnome-developer] Re: java autoconf macros

[Jeffrey M. <Jef...@Br...>]

> We really should make a 0.8 branch in cvs so we can maintain 
> a gnome 2.2
> version of java-gnome while developing the latest version - 
> few ppl will
> want to install developmental gnome releases just to use java-gnome.
> 
> As the builds seem to be working, we should release 0.8.2 to give a
> wider test base and also let people know about our new 
> schedule. Jeff -
> you're the only one with access to the sourceforge file release, so
> could you do this please? 

The releases are on the site.  We need to update the website to reflect
the latest changes.  Once the announcement is made people will go
to the site to see info regarding the release and to download.  Alberto,
what would it take to get a quick update of the site?

> (please update cvs first - I've renamed the doc tarballs -
> java-gnome-doc-core, etc -- it will make gnome ppl happier)
> mkdir tmp
> cp java-gnome tmp
> ./tmp/java-gnome/build/maketarballs.sh

The creation of the doc-core tarballs failed.  It is not included
in the releases on the site yet.  The failure was due to a directory
naming problem.

> 
> That should work.
> If you send me the md5sums, I'll write an announcement email saying
> about gnome bindings release and send it to various announce 
> lists. Has
> anything else changed since 0.8.1?

The md2sums are attached to the email.  There are several additional
items that should be mentioned.  This release included initial gconf
and libgtkhtml support.  Also, I added event handling for the Entry widget
as well as fixing the event handling for other widgets that had 
problems.  Also, there were several bug fixes along the way.


> On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 09:50:48PM -0500, Jeffrey Morgan wrote:
> > I also took a quick look at the libgnomecanvas bindings.  It
> > appears like we have near complete coverage of this library.
> > The only question is "does it work?".  Can somebody please take
> > a look at these classes (org.gnu.gnome.Canvas*).
> To follow the bindings, should this be in a separate tarball then?

It probably should be in its' own package but we can deal with that
in the next release.

> > I am about to look into the gtk bindings to make sure we
> > are ready for Dec 22nd.
> What do you call ready? Development releases are supposed to be buggy
> and incomplete, especially .0 ones. I think we are ok as we 
> are, as long
> as our next release (in 2 weeks) is a lot better.

Ok