Hi Damien, Am Di, den 27.04.2004 schrieb Damien Sandras um 10:18: > > So you think the best solution is: > > * Do not require gnome-vfs >= 2.6 in configure.in > > * and let the bug stay there for those suing earlier version? > > > > Well, I think configure.in should state the real requirements, but I > > understand what the problem is. I see two solutions: > > a) packagers patch configure.in themselves so they can compile against > > gnome-vfs < 2.6 > > b) we revert the requirement from cvs. But the code to load static > > images won't work properly with old gnome-vfs. > > > > I would do a), but can do b) immediately if you feel is the the right > > way to proceed. > > Both a) and b) are fine with me. If we are going for a), that's perfect. > (Kilian any comments?). If we are going for b), we have to not forget to > put the requirement again later when GNOME 2.6 is available everywhere. technically a patch is not a problem until gnome2.6 is broadly available.. i just wonder what's the impact of forcing this (maybe broken) config? will the code compile, will it work? will it taint the debugging? -- Best regards, Kilian
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil