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