Bug 44264 – gphpedit 0.9.10 unstable is out

• Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 70969
• Product: Gentoo Linux

[Description Julien Allanos (RETIRED) 2004-03-10 10:02:44 UTC]

renaming the gphpedit-0.9.6.ebuild to gphpedit-0.9.10.ebuild worked for me.

[Comment 1 Brian Friday 2004-03-24 18:00:29 UTC]

Created attachment 27968 [details]
Old gphpedit ebuild renamed to be 0.9.10

As the original submitter didn't actually attach a new ebuild I'm adding this
now. Didn't do anything special to this ebuild just changed the version number
from the existing 0.9.6 ebuild in portage

[Comment 2 Julien Allanos (RETIRED) 2004-03-24 23:42:49 UTC]

1-there is no need to submit an ebuild where no changes were made, other than version renaming,
2-when you submit an ebuild, don't fill the Header line, as it will automatically be at the cvs commit,
3-mime type for ebuilds attached to bugzilla has to be test/plain.

[Comment 3 erkan kaplan 2004-04-20 01:25:56 UTC]

Hi,

     1	RDEPEND=">=dev-libs/glib-2.0
     2		>=x11-libs/gtk+-2.0
     3		>=gnome-base/libgnomeui-2.0
     4		>=x11-libs/gtkscintilla2-0.0.8
     5		=gnome-extra/libgtkhtml-2*"


Line 4 is wrong. Gphpedit depend on gtkscintilla2-0.1.0 

[Comment 4 erkan kaplan 2004-04-20 01:33:25 UTC]

Created attachment 29683 [details]
gphpedit-0.9.10 with GtkScintilla2-0.1.0 dependancy

gphpedit-0.9.10 with GtkScintilla2-0.1.0 dependancy

[Comment 5 Colin Macdonald 2004-07-11 00:20:33 UTC]

0.9.10 works for me with change as in Comment #3 (I'm using ~x86).  Please add to the portage tree.

P.S.
erkan kaplan: please read item 3 in Comment #2 above!

[Comment 6 erkan kaplan 2004-08-06 17:05:54 UTC]

Created attachment 36918 [details]
a few correction (e.g HEADER and GtkScintilla2 depends)

a few correction (e.g HEADER and GtkScintilla2 depends)

[Comment 7 erkan kaplan 2004-08-06 17:07:07 UTC]

Created attachment 36919 [details]
a few correction (e.g HEADER and GtkScintilla2 depends)

a few correction (e.g HEADER and GtkScintilla2 depends)

[Comment 8 Mike Gardiner (RETIRED) 2004-08-06 22:02:28 UTC]

Is there a reason you have titled this "unstable"? As far as I can see it's just the next release after 0.9.6 on the way to the official 1.0 release. Is there something I'm missing?

[Comment 9 Julien Allanos (RETIRED) 2004-08-07 02:02:58 UTC]

probably because it hasn't been tested a lot, since it's not yet commited :) the real question is: is ~x86 keyword is due to the stability of a piece of software, its integration into gentoo, or both?

[Comment 10 Mike Gardiner (RETIRED) 2004-08-07 02:33:25 UTC]

This isn't an "unstable branch" release of the software any more than the last release. ~x86 is for testing ebuilds, not to do with the quality of the software. This will be committed when we have time.

Thankyou

[Comment 11 Andreas Waschinski 2004-11-03 06:53:37 UTC]

First off, no offence meant with this post at all, I'm just wondering why this version bump didn't get into portage yet as the last comment is almost three months old and the latest release is from March 10, 2004. Problems with GtkScintilla2?

[Comment 12 Alastair Tse (RETIRED) 2004-11-15 13:01:03 UTC]

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 70969 ***