Bugzilla Bug 102228

requirements slightly different
gtk+-2 >=2.4
shared-mime-info >= 0.16



Reproducible: Always
Steps to Reproduce:
1. n/a
2.
3.

Actual Results:  
n/a

Expected Results:  
n/a

rox 2.3 has been released in testing. It's an important release though since
they FINALLY have vertical file listings as an option -- among other changes. I
am submitting these patches based on the stable 2.2.0 ebuild. I removed the
patch for gcc 4 since I am _not_ sure if it still applies or not. I don't use 4.

A full ebuild file and a diff patch to 2.2.0 are provided. I hope someone will
edit it and make it correct in all ways. I am not an ebuild expert, but it works
for me :)

Created an attachment (id=65753) [edit]
Rox 2.3 ebuild

Created an attachment (id=65754) [edit]
Patch from rox-2.2.0 to rox-2.3

Note, the epatch for gcc 4 has been removed since I am not sure it still
applies. gcc 4 users, please take note and resolve if required.

as for the video thumbnails ... which dependancy we are missing?

http://www.kerofin.demon.co.uk/rox/VideoThumbnail.html

This is not a dependency, but a separate app. I have not tried it!

http://www.kerofin.demon.co.uk/rox/utils.html is a catalog of different apps for
Rox.

See bug #102346 for VideoThumbnail-0.1.5 test ebuild. Good luck

Provided ebuild for 2.3 works great on AMD64  ... thanks!  Why hasn't this been
added to portage?

Either the maintainer is no longer active or there are not enough users?? There
is quite a rox backlog for some time. I have no idea what it will take to get
these ebuilds into portage. Glad it worked though.

ROX 2.3 is now the stable version according to rox.sf.net.

Created an attachment (id=68036) [edit]
Update to package to conform to rox standards for application placement

All other rox applications install to /usr/lib/rox/Application.../
Rox, for some reason, installs to /usr/share/ROX-Filer.

This 2.3-r1 ebuild changes that and installs the ROX-Filer in the same
application directory as all other ebuilds.../usr/lib/rox/Application... This
is where rox belongs, and is consistent with its own install file and other
distros too. This ebuild also made a small change to the way the /usr/bin/rox
file was created from using echo commands to a cat > /usr/bin/rox <<EOF method.


See bug #105387 for a description of this problem as it relates to the
rox.eclass file.

NOTE: This ebuild WILL remove ROX-Filer from /usr/share and place it in
/usr/lib/rox. It will also change /usr/bin/rox to properly execute the rox
application in the new location. However, it will not remove any user-installed
files from the /usr/share/ROX-Filer directory.

Created an attachment (id=68037) [edit]
Patch from rox-2.3.ebuild to rox-2.3-r1.ebuild

Highlights changes made to ebuild for easier analysis and commentary

ROX Users. Please see my comments at bottom of bug #79333. Thank you.

Peter

Created an attachment (id=69114) [edit]
rox-base/rox-2.3-r2.ebuild

this ebuild includes patches from cvs that correct some problems that were in
the release version. Chief among the changes is the downgrade of the dependancy
of shared-mime-info to 0.14 from 0.16. Apparently, there was a lot of grousing
about upgrading, so the mods were incorporated into the rox system. Other small
changes are noted in the app's ChangeLog. Be sure and download the required
patch file and insert into the files/ directory

Created an attachment (id=69116) [edit]
bzipped patch file required for rox-2.3-r2

This patch file contains diffs from the cvs tree.

The ebuild rox-2.3-r2 is in CVS now and is calles rox-2.3.ebuild (we never had
-r1, so no sense to call it -r2). The patch for it is not in portage (not a good
idea to commit binary files to CVS and unziped it's too large) but on out
mirrors instead.

Also I remove glib from DEPENDS, cause it's included in gtk+ requirements any way.

(In reply to comment #14)
> The ebuild rox-2.3-r2 is in CVS now and is calles rox-2.3.ebuild (we never had
> -r1, so no sense to call it -r2). The patch for it is not in portage (not a good
> idea to commit binary files to CVS and unziped it's too large) but on out
> mirrors instead.
> 
> Also I remove glib from DEPENDS, cause it's included in gtk+ requirements any way.

Ouch, did I? I did not realize I had binaries in there. Sorry