Hi eschwartz,
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschwartz
Cool, sounds great!
And I've verified my AUR package passes the plugin tests with flying colors.
|
Nicely done.
Quote:
[*]Can you summarize the failed tests -- if any -- at the end? Just to make it easier to read. 
[*]Would it be possible to report which components are part of the core functionality, and which are recommended but not crucial? I am thinking of some of the python packages, which plugins may expect but Sigil itself does not use.
Reason I ask is, because I list those as optdepends ("python-whatever: recommended for plugins"), and debian can list them as suggests or recommends.
|
The output itself is only 1 page long in total and it tells you everything. So a quick visual inspection will tell you anything you want.
I can split out the extra Python external packages such as cssutils, cssselect, PIL, html5lib, six, into their own reporting section. That said if you or other linux distributors treat them differently from other python 3 packages, some future plugin may fail generating an unneeded bug report and more inconsistencies across platforms. I would prefer to keep all versions of Sigil with the exact same capabilties just to be safe and consistent and to make support easier.
By the way, without lxml, Sigil will not even start up, making testing the plugins impossible.
Quote:
[*]You documented the plugin in docs/Bundling_Python3_With_Sigil_on_MacOSX.txt but not docs/BuildingOnLinux.md
It isn't very helpful to linux packagers if they don't know it exists  so I think it would be nice if you made it more likely they will see it.
|
I only just added it to the Mac OSX building docs before I posted it here. The Linux docs will get a similar treatment but there are only so many hours of volunteer time this weekend. Before we release Sigil-0.9.1, we'll make that change.
Thanks,
KevinH