Sigil 0.1.1
 

Sigil v0.1.1 has been released. The ChangeLog for this release follows:

The Mac build has been very kindly provided by MobileRead member pilotbob. The Mac machine I used is not available until next Sunday* so I had to recruit someone to do the mac build, and pilotbob came to the rescue. :)

I am also told that there are some problems with building the mac version from source... Unfortunately I can't work on this until I get a mac near me. DMG users are of course not affect by this.

Linux users should notice there is no binary build for their platform. The previous version had one, and that didn't work out too well. For now, just build it from source:
That's it. Look in the "bin" folder for the compiled binary.

*I don't actually own a Mac. A friend of mine owns one, but he's gone temporarily out of town. Great timing, isn't it?

woo hoo !! already up to 0.1.1 !! i'm happy about code line numbers. very, very happy. ;)

by the way, you should add a link to your signature to go directly to the google code page as well. :)

thanks valloric !!!

I turn off display of signatures on any forum that allows this, so I don't really perceive them. This includes my own :)

But thanks, I'll fix it now.

Thankyou for this new release. Compiling now :)

oh the irony. :p

by the way, the "about" screen still says v.0.1.0 ;) completely unimportant, i know, but i just wanted to admire the landmark. :rolleyes:

(should i stop making work for you with "by the way" in every post ? ;))

Great. I knew there was something I forgot.

Sorry, forgot to tell you :) Noticed it on my AMD64 build..

Thank you for the quick update :)

But, there is some problem with the mac version... I did dowloaded the v0.1.1 from here http://sigil.googlecode.com/files/Sigil_mac_0.1.1.dmg I did installed, and after run it in "About" is named 0.1.0, and still can not open Calibre`s epub.

Grrr... After compiling Qt 4.5.2, I get this:

WARNING: This project requires version 2.6 of CMake. You are running version 2.4.8.

So I once again ask for pre-compiled static versions, if possible :)

I'm using a Mandriva 2008 system, but it's sort of in production state, so upgrading now is not the best option.

The About screen displaying the older version number is a known problem. I forgot to increment a variable specifying what version is Sigil. :)

Please create an issue and attach the epub in question.

You know, linux development is hard. Really hard. Not so much because of the software, but because of the users :D. When I provide a binary so that people don't have to compile it themselves, I get yelled at for doing this because "on linux you should provide source packages and people should always install from that, if there are no debs or rpms" (direct quote from email).

When I provided only source packages, it's still not good... So tell me, what do I need to do to make linux people happy? And to somehow stop them from sending me hatemail... :)

Now Jellby, I know you're not one of those difficult people, so please tell me what to do here.

Debs and rpms should be provided for Sigil 0.1.2, or 0.1.3 at the latest.

Easy: provide both :D

That would be great too. Best would be to provide source .tar.gz (or .bz2), dynamically linked binary packages (.deb, .rpm and whatnot), and statically linked binary packages. I know best is not always possible though, and you probably don't want to do everything in early development stages.

In my opinion, for development versions it would be enough to provide source code and static binary packages, that's not perfect, but would probably get enough users satisfied enough ;)

Compiled linux version is now up on the site.

Excellent! That'll be used in my netbook, where I don't have all the compilers and development libraries :D

In the other computer I downloaded cmake 2.6 and could compile Sigil, and it worked! Now I have to figure out how to make a static build that will work in my old laptop, with Mandriva 2005, Qt3.3 and GLIBC_2.3.4 :rolleyes:

They're just getting warmed up. :) Wait till people running slightly unusual/older distros have problems. About 10-13% of calibre users are linux based, yet the number of complaints I get from linux users is a far higher percentage of the total.

Then periodically someone will write to me that they don't like Qt, could I please make a GTK based interface. Or that they don't like X, could I please rewrite everything to not depend on it. Or that a calibre package doesn't exist for their favorite obscure distro Y, could I please take the trouble to create one for it. Then there'll be complaints from smart asses convinced that they know more than you do and you could do no better than listen to them.

And since you've written Sigil in Qt you'll eventually start getting complaints from OS X people along the lines of, this doesn't look like other OS X apps, please rewrite the GUI specially for me.

In comparison I have to say that windows users are the most mature of the lot. The worst problems I get on windows are when some stupid AV program or the other prevents calibre from working on a users machine.

Certainly developing for linux users can be fun ;) On the plus side, most serious code contributors to your project are likely to be running linux.

Linux users can think for themselves, Windows users will eat whatever you give them :p

I should perhaps state that I'm a linux user myself ;)

I was amazed at how quickly I got people literally yelling at me in ALL CAPS in emails. Apparently providing a compiled binary for linux outside of a package like deb or rpm is grounds for a hanging.

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

You should probably just say "It's OSS, feel free to make a GTK port" and be done with it.

So far I've only received kind words from Windows users. Can't say the same for Linux people, although they are the ones offering the most help, too.

It's a different culture I guess. The Windows people take what they can get, the Linux people will complain form dusk 'till dawn but are ready to contribute code to resolve it.

I use both Windows and Linux, but I'm partial to my Windows machine. Linux has many things going for it: usability, unfortunately, is not one of them.

[Taps microphone]
Hello? I'm Derek and I'm a Windows user.
[muted "Hellos" from the rest of the group]
I just wanted to say that it's been less than 60 seconds since the last time I used Windows. And I just found out that, as a Windows user, I cannot think for myself!
[Gasps from the group]
What I want to know is, is there an OS out there which EXACTLY duplicates the functionality, UI, ease-of-use and complete integration with the BillG/Micro$lut World Domination Plan made by a responsible OS developer? One that can run ALL my M$ apps without needing to recompile, restructure or *RELEARN* all the UIs?

:D :D :D

Derek

With or without the various bugs, crashes, viruses, malware, et al? :D :D :D

(Sorry Valloric, for going off-topic. I just couldn't resist the quip...)

*WITH*, of course! :D :D :D (That way it'll remind me of the Cybook Gen3 firmware. :D )

Derek

The easiest way, of course, is to tell ppl who have the overwhelming desire for GTK interfaces is to tell them to port it themselves, i.e. make their own GTKSigil project.
As for obscure distros :chinscratch: I believe that managing the top 3 distros would do, and if they want support for their favourite rare distro, the answer again is to get them to port it themselves.
As for different processor executables, which is my big thing given I'm using AMD64, I'd be happy to compile for myself - but often the problem is guessing what depends are needed. I'm still to compile calibre and your calibre executable package, Kovid, is essentially i686 with every library needed compiled for i686 included and distributed via magical mystery script (bypassing the repositories). The Ubuntu repository people do succeed at porting calibre directly to AMD64 but they don't exactly keep up with the latest version of Calibre except during each Ubuntu release, which is usually months down the road and a long wait indeed. If a small feature is broken atm and assuming the repos version was broken too, it would be even more painful for a repository user.
They certainly whinge when it comes to OS X too (where style matters above substance!) except I no longer regularly use OS X and as such couldn't care less anymore. I encourage you to have the same attitude; you can't change the look of an application every five minutes! If they want it to look different, they can make their 'port' themselves IMHO.

Hello, my name is Derek and I use Windows and I have a Gen3 so yes, I cannot think and I do take what's given.:offtopic::rofl:

Oh yeah, my standard response is "feel the source" ;)

Oh Geez! Cheez it fellas! The O-T Nazis have made their appearance! :D :D :D

Derek

Godwin. It's time to get this thread back on track.

I see your Godwin and raise a Reductio ad Hitlerum! :rofl:

But why??? I mean valloric is doing a GREAT JOB of improving Sigil and he's just going to start a new thread when he gets to v0.2 or v0.3 so why NOT go ad nauseum??? :D

No, but if you were a Linux user, you could develop one yourself. :D