2.4.9 release, 2.5.0 plans

[Christian Stimming]

Am Sonntag, 18. Dezember 2011, 14:23:10 schrieb John Ralls:
> > The plugin directories for gwenyhwfar are looked up in two ways: Firstly
> > by using the executable's installation location as a starting point
> > (using binreloc on Unix and GetModuleFileName() on Windows), assuming
> > it's installed in some $prefix/bin, and going to $prefix/lib relative
> > from there. Secondly, on windows the paths from the registry are used,
> > and on Unix the compile-time paths are used.
> 
> There are a couple of catches, though: I couldn't make the MinGW/Msys
> installation described in the Wiki article work (several packages are too
> old), and so I installed the latest MinGW and turned off the packages that
> mess with it. I obviously don't want to commit that. If you or Geert have a
> setup that matches what the buildbot uses, perhaps you could copy the
> defaults.sh from trunk to the 2.4 branch and give it a try.

I don't have a local setup that matches, sorry.

> I wanted to test the AQB setup from the build installation. I guess that
> won't work without hacking on the registry, eh? How do you test anything in
> Windows?

I haven't been testing anything in Windows for quite some time by now.

The aqbanking setup cannot be tested from the build directory, only from the 
installation directory. Once you have run "make install", the command line 
utility "aqbanking-cli" should work, though. If there are no registry keys, 
the plugin directories will be looked up from aqbanking-cli's installation 
prefix. If this is a different prefix from gwenhywfar, it indeed won't work 
and your only way to get this work is to set all the registry keys that we 
already noted in gnucash.iss.

> I don't know about getting a release out in the next week. It doesn't look
> like anyone else is going to write the "feature table" feature, and since
> there are a few wrinkles there (starting with I haven't ever studied the
> xml backend) I don't think I'll be able to get it done this week.

Yes, it doesn't look like anyone else is planning on writing the "feature 
table". In that case, I'd like to propose to have a 2.4.9 release in any case 
rather soon, and have a 2.4.10 with the "feature table" feature (no pun 
intended) in January or February. We're not in a hurry here, after all.

Regards,

Christian