| Summary: | The official collection of extensions for the GNOME Web Browser. | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Mathias Hasselmann <mathias.hasselmann> |
| Component: | [OLD] GNOME | Assignee: | Gentoo Linux Gnome Desktop Team <gnome> |
| Status: | RESOLVED DUPLICATE | ||
| Severity: | enhancement | CC: | matt |
| Priority: | High | ||
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| URL: | http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/ephyplugins/ | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
| Attachments: | The portage script | ||
|
Description
Mathias Hasselmann
2003-10-05 06:36:24 UTC
Created attachment 18780 [details]
The portage script
*** Bug 25893 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** i miss a version indication in this enhancement request. Are you sure the deps are complete ? And the ephy patching i should have a look at, changing files on the live filesystem might not be a good idea. > i miss a version indication in this enhancement request. hmm: ephy-extensions 0.25 are for the 1.0 series of epiphany. or did you mean the "Version" field of this bugzilla item? Guess my gentoo is en pair with release 1.4. Dunno ;-) > Are you sure the deps are complete ? The plugins themself only have references to libc and the configure script only checks for intltool, perl, libxml-2.0, libglade-2.0, gtk+-2.0 and epiphany-1.0 - nothing that is not needed to compile and run epiphany. The README and INSTALL also do not list any additional dependencies. > And the ephy patching i should have a look at, changing files on the live > filesystem might not be a good idea. Yep, it's ugly. Maybe I should checkout epiphany 1.0.1 (no official .ebuild yet?) to see if that patch still is needed. as a rule of thumb we include any dep mentioned in the configure script. 1.0.1 was added to the tree yesterday, please check if it needs the patching. Ephy 1.0.1 still needs the patch. |
