On Fri, 2006-03-31 at 14:30 +0200, Tom Parker wrote:
> Paul W. Frields wrote:
> > I am the maintainer for the drivel package in Fedora Extras, and in
> > Fedora Core 5 I've encountered a small problem documented here:
> >
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=186168
> >
> > I'm not much of a GNOME programmer (or otherwise), so is there anyone on
> > the list willing to help me figure this problem out?
>
> Couple of things that may help:
> 1) Can you reproduce this with the version of drivel in the Gnome CVS?
> If so, can you please file a copy of this bug in the Gnome Bugzilla.
>
> 2) Do you get a segfault while running drivel under gdb with the
> "--g-fatal-warnings" flag given to drivel? If so, can we have a
> backtrace for that.
The CVS version (HEAD) does correct this problem. I also tested a new
RPM build by doing "make distclean," rolling a tarball, and using my
existing spec file to make a new RPM, which works fine as well.
It still requires a small patch which I can file in Bugzilla -- just a
weirdness with the .desktop file where "Terminal=false" is required
rather than "Terminal=False" (note caps), which might or might not be a
Fedora-ism. Sorry I didn't do that before, I am always timid around
real developers, and a Johnny-come-lately here to boot. ("Better to
remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove
all doubt.")
Any chance of getting a new "official" tarball rolled?
--
Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
Fedora Documentation Project: http://fedora.redhat.com/projects/docs/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part