Re: Continued .. Moving up the chain: Breaking gnome 2.0 alpha builds
- From: jacob berkman <jacob ximian com>
- To: Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com>
- Cc: Gregory Leblanc <gleblanc linuxweasel com>, Gnome desktop devel list <desktop-devel-list gnome org>, Damon Chaplin <damon ximian com>
- Subject: Re: Continued .. Moving up the chain: Breaking gnome 2.0 alpha builds
- Date: 18 Jan 2002 12:44:37 -0500
On Fri, 2002-01-18 at 00:09, Owen Taylor wrote:
>
> Gregory Leblanc <gleblanc linuxweasel com> writes:
>
> > On Thu, 2002-01-17 at 15:01, R.I.P. Deaddog wrote:
> > > On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Chris Chabot wrote:
> > >
> > > > Also, gtk+ and other packages fail when the redhat's default gtk-doc is
> > > > installed. Since upgrading it and all the tools is not a simple job, the
> > > > 'easy' solution seems to be `rpm -e gtk-doc`
> > >
> > > So, is it warranted to have a new release of gtk-doc within a few
> > > days?
> >
> > Only if someone can figure out why it works for some packages, but not
> > for others. I suspect that it's some difference in the makefiles, but
> > haven't had time to investigate further. I'm not sure it's a gtk-doc
> > problem.
>
> There is generally no reason to have gtk-doc when building
> from tarballs except that the packages default to using it when
> it is found.
>
> Making a new gtk-doc release is just a few minutes, so, it may be
> worth doing it just because it is easy, but people will be happier if
> they configure with --disable-gtk-doc in general.
i still didn't get that gtk_type_init() change - i guess i should do
that now. (or should i wait?)
jacob
--
"In fact, can you imagine anything more terrifying than a zombie clown?"
-- moby
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]