Re: wxWindows Build

> -----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.

Regards, Dave.

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

It's rumoured that Andreas Pflug once said:

> 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.

Shal we go with the later one then if we know it's good, and stick a
patched tarball on Snake?
Regards, Dave

Dave Page wrote:

>It's rumoured that Andreas Pflug once said:
>
>
>
>>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.
>>
>>
>
>Shal we go with the later one then if we know it's good, and stick a
>patched tarball on Snake?
>Regards, Dave
>
>
Yes, and apply the patch appended to this mail.

Regards,
Andreas