From: | Andreas Pflug <Andreas(dot)Pflug(at)web(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Dave Page <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> |
Cc: | "Adam H(dot) Pendleton" <fmonkey(at)fmonkey(dot)net>, pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Jean-Michel POURE <jm(at)poure(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: wxWindows Build |
Date: | 2003-06-27 22:09:57 |
Message-ID: | 3EFCC0B5.30007@web.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgadmin-hackers |
Dave Page wrote:
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Andreas Pflug [mailto:Andreas(dot)Pflug(at)web(dot)de]
>>Sent: 27 June 2003 21:45
>>To: Dave Page
>>Cc: Adam H. Pendleton; pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
>>Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] wxWindows Build
>>
>>
>>Dave Page wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>As far as I am aware it is just the Unicode support that we use 2.5
>>>for.
>>>
>>>
>>Nope.
>>
>>The dialog metrics are vastly improved in 2.5, so gtk really
>>looks the
>>same as win32. Most strings won't fit in gtk if 2.4 if used,
>>the fonts
>>are really messed up.
>>
>>Still, I wonder about this version discussion. AFAIR we simply have
>>--with-wx, and evaluate the version that's stored there.
>>
>>
>
>Another point of note - from the reply Raphael got from his Debian
>packager friend it sounds like the wx CVS is currently being turned
>upside-down whilst they reorganise the structure.
>
>Looks like we're stuck with 2003-06-07.
>
>
>
We need our own version at the moment, which may be based on 2003-06-07
or 2003-06-18, and has the additional wxString patch to support that's
still open.
Regards,
Andreas
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dave Page | 2003-06-28 08:07:51 | Re: wxWindows Build |
Previous Message | Dave Page | 2003-06-27 21:00:15 | Re: wxWindows Build |