[sword-devel] [bt-devel] Bibletime 2.0.alpha3 FTBFS with sword 1.6.0RC1 library
eekaikko at mail.student.oulu.fi
Sat Apr 18 00:06:48 MST 2009
Troy A. Griffitts wrote:
> Did you see the other #ifdefs we have for av11n? I believe we define 2
> things in the sword cmake file to let you know if you are using the
> newer version of the lib. Maybe they should just be changed to
> something like SWORD_1_6 now that we've committed to a 1.6.x branch.
That's true, I did a quick ugly fix, copying from the other definitions.
I didn't read the changelog to see if it happens to declare those changes.
> Yes, I'm hoping you added the call after actually checking that the user
> has agreed to the disclaimer we suggest in #include<installmgr.h>. This
> is very important to protect against persecuted users unwittingly
> revealing their use of Bible software to foes.
Unfortunately I have to destroy your hope here: we have only the static
warning which doesn't have to be agreed. But I have already planned
replacing it with a dynamic warning.
There is virtual int refreshRemoteSourceConfiguration(). Would it be
enough if I override it, opening a dialog etc.? Now I just use
setUserDisclaimerConfirmed(bool val). Is it so that the library calls
refreshRemoteSourceConfiguration() before every network transaction? And
what is the int return value?
> Sorry :) This was coded before your last chastisement so it's already
> covered by a grandfather clause. I'll add comments, but basically, the
> logic is in the example installmgr commandline tool at:
> search for syncConfig
> The master list is just wrong. I believe Karl and I were testing with
> the list that is currently out there. When we release a final API which
> supports it, we will populate the master list with valid repos.
Combining these two, does it mean that the API will change? Or should I
just read the installmgr or soon to come comments and use the existing API?
More information about the sword-devel