[gtkmm] Re: gtkmm-list digest, Vol 1 #811 - 13 msgs
- From: Dean Kutryk <trollking shaw ca>
- To: gtkmm-list gnome org
- Subject: [gtkmm] Re: gtkmm-list digest, Vol 1 #811 - 13 msgs
- Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 03:12:57 -0700
This 'newsgroup thing' looks like a massive batch of ideas all piled on
top of each other. Talk about a barrier to technology, I see that
technology only complicates old practices. I think it would be better to
literally get out a pencil and a piece of paper and do this whole thing
using the postal service.
On Thu, 2004-01-08 at 02:11, gtkmm-list-request gnome org wrote:
> Send gtkmm-list mailing list submissions to
> gtkmm-list gnome org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtkmm-list
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> gtkmm-list-request gnome org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> gtkmm-list-admin gnome org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of gtkmm-list digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. RE: Possible to use libglademm -without- a GNOME installa
> tion?? (Amit BHATNAGAR)
> 2. Re: Abandoning gcc 2.9*? (Tero Koskinen)
> 3. Gtkmm-forge digest, Vol 1 #592 - 3 msgs (gtkmm-forge-request lists sourceforge net)
> 4. RE: A Gtkmm Forum (Silviu D Minut)
> 5. Re: gtkmm-list digest, Vol 1 #809 - 2 msgs (Dean Kutryk)
> 6. RE: A Gtkmm Forum (Carl Nygard)
> 7. Building gtkmm-2.2.8 with HP C++ compiler (Albert Chin)
> 8. RE: Abandoning gcc 2.9*? (Murray Cumming Comneon com)
> 9. RE: Possible to use libglademm -without- a GNOME installa
> tion?? (Murray Cumming Comneon com)
> 10. RE: A Gtkmm Forum (Murray Cumming Comneon com)
> 11. Re: Glib::signal_io (Find All)
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 1
> From: Amit BHATNAGAR <abhatnag mda ca>
> To: "'Billy O'Connor'" <billyoc gnuyork org>
> Cc: gtkmm-list gnome org
> Subject: RE: [gtkmm] Possible to use libglademm -without- a GNOME installa
> tion??
> Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 16:55:40 -0800
>
> Yes this does compile. Simply including <libglademm/xml.h> in my test
> app solved the problem.
>
> I thought this was a much tougher problem when I realized that I didn't
> have gnome installed.
>
> My appologies!
>
> amit.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Billy O'Connor [mailto:billyoc gnuyork org]
> > Sent: January 7, 2004 4:45 PM
> > To: Amit BHATNAGAR
> > Cc: gtkmm-list gnome org
> > Subject: Re: [gtkmm] Possible to use libglademm -without- a GNOME
> > installa tion??
> >
> >
> > Amit BHATNAGAR <abhatnag mda ca> writes:
> >
> > > For what its worth, the following is what I am using to compile my
> > > application, (via
> > > makefile)
> > >
> > > g++ -o gtempCpp gtemp_app.cc gtempcpp.cc gtemp_app_glade.cc
> > `pkg-config
> > > --cflags gtkmm-2.0` `pkg-config --libs gtkmm-2.0`
> > `pkg-config libglademm-2.0
> > > --cflags --libs`
> > >
> > > any ideas would be appreicated.
> > >
> >
> > Will this smal example compile for you?
> >
> > #include <libglademm/xml.h>
> >
> > int main (int argc, char **argv)
> > {
> > Glib::RefPtr<Gnome::Glade::Xml> refXml;
> >
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> >
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 03:28:21 +0200
> From: Tero Koskinen <tkoskine students cc tut fi>
> To: gtkmm-list gnome org
> Subject: Re: [gtkmm] Abandoning gcc 2.9*?
> Reply-To: tkoskine students cc tut fi
>
> On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 22:07:04 +0100
> Fredrik Arnerup <e97_far e kth se> wrote:
> > Gene Ruebsamen <gene erachampion com> writes:
> >
> > > Someone mentioned earlier that BSD may still require gcc 2.9*
> > > support. Is this still the case?
> >
> > I believe OpenBSD uses 2.95 for all non-64-bit platforms.
>
> Also NetBSD 1.6.1 (stable) and FreeBSD 4.9 (stable) use GCC 2.95 by their
> default compiler. All three BSDs provide GCC 3.3.x/3.2.x via
> ports/packages/pkg_src collection.
>
> GCC 3.3.x is the default compiler on NetBSD-current and FreeBSD-current.
> OpenBSD-current uses GCC 2.95 (on non-64-bit platforms).
>
> If the GCC 2.9x support is dropped from gtkmm, then one cannot
> compile gtkmm on stable release of any BSD without installing
> another compiler(GCC 3.[23].x) first.
>
> Having two GCCs on same system is a little bit chaotic since you
> need two different versions of C++ libraries, but usually there aren't
> too many of them and the amount of management stays reasonable.
>
> > But OpenBSD is mostly used on servers anyway.
>
> Personally I use OpenBSD-current as my primary desktop OS and like
> to play with gtkmm as a hobby. I have nothing against dropping the GCC 2.9x
> support since on my system gtkmm is compiled using GCC 3.2.3 because my own
> C++ code doesn't build with GCC 2.95.
>
> --
> Tero Koskinen - tkoskine students cc tut fi
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 20:01:11 -0800
> From: gtkmm-forge-request lists sourceforge net
> Reply-To: gtkmm-forge lists sourceforge net
> To: gtkmm-forge lists sourceforge net
> Subject: [gtkmm] Gtkmm-forge digest, Vol 1 #592 - 3 msgs
>
> Send Gtkmm-forge mailing list submissions to
> gtkmm-forge lists sourceforge net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gtkmm-forge
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> gtkmm-forge-request lists sourceforge net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> gtkmm-forge-admin lists sourceforge net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Gtkmm-forge digest..."
>
>
> gtkmm-forge is the mailing list that receives gtkmm bug reports from bugzilla. A daily digest is sent to gtkmm-main, to encourage people to help fixing the bugs.
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. [Bug 86865] Changed - Collection of minor GTK+ bugs that affect gtkmm (bugzilla-daemon widget gnome org)
> 2. [Bug 129210] Changed - gtkmm-2.3.1 does not build with gcc 2.95 (bugzilla-daemon widget gnome org)
> 3. [Bug 129210] Changed - gtkmm-2.3.1 does not build with gcc 2.95 (bugzilla-daemon widget gnome org)
>
> -- __--__--
>
> Message: 1
> From: bugzilla-daemon widget gnome org
> To: gtkmm-forge lists sourceforge net, murrayc usa net
> Cc:
> Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 03:16:47 -0500 (EST)
> Subject: [gtkmm bugzilla] [Bug 86865] Changed - Collection of minor GTK+ bugs that affect gtkmm
>
> Please do not reply to this email- if you want to comment on the bug, go to the
> URL shown below and enter your comments there.
>
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=86865
>
> Changed by murrayc usa net
>
> --- shadow/86865 Tue Jan 6 13:02:25 2004
> +++ shadow/86865.tmp.14758 Wed Jan 7 03:16:47 2004
> @@ -10,13 +10,13 @@
> Component: general
> AssignedTo: gtkmm-forge lists sourceforge net
> ReportedBy: murrayc usa net
> TargetMilestone: ---
> URL:
> Summary: Collection of minor GTK+ bugs that affect gtkmm
> -BugsThisDependsOn: 52877, 63768, 64601, 72426[FIXED]
> +BugsThisDependsOn: 52877[FIXED], 63768, 64601, 72426[FIXED]
>
> This umbrella bug helps us to know what GTK+ bugs are relevant to gtkmm.
> We have probably hacked around these bugs, but we'd still like them to be
> fixed properly.
>
> ------- Additional Comments From murrayc usa net 2003-07-18 09:55 -------
>
>
> -- __--__--
>
> Message: 2
> From: bugzilla-daemon widget gnome org
> To: gtkmm-forge lists sourceforge net, dalgoda ix netcom com
> Cc:
> Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 08:03:27 -0500 (EST)
> Subject: [gtkmm bugzilla] [Bug 129210] Changed - gtkmm-2.3.1 does not build with gcc 2.95
>
> Please do not reply to this email- if you want to comment on the bug, go to the
> URL shown below and enter your comments there.
>
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=129210
>
> Changed by murrayc usa net
>
> --- shadow/129210 Wed Dec 17 11:43:31 2003
> +++ shadow/129210.tmp.6186 Wed Jan 7 08:03:27 2004
> @@ -135,6 +135,11 @@
> Hell, it certainly wasn't obvious to me that any of those files were
> generated when I do something like ``vi +100
> gtkmm-2.3.1/gtk/gtkmm/radioaction.h''
>
> ------- Additional Comments From murrayc usa net 2003-12-17 11:43 -------
> I am happy to apply a patch for this.
> +
> +------- Additional Comments From murrayc usa net 2004-01-07 08:03 -------
> +There is a chance that we will not support gcc 2.96 in future, because
> +we might use a newer libsigc++ that can not support it. On the mailing
> +list I am asking who needs 2.96 and why? Maybe you could reply to that.
>
>
> -- __--__--
>
> Message: 3
> From: bugzilla-daemon widget gnome org
> To: gtkmm-forge lists sourceforge net, dalgoda ix netcom com
> Cc:
> Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 14:45:39 -0500 (EST)
> Subject: [gtkmm bugzilla] [Bug 129210] Changed - gtkmm-2.3.1 does not build with gcc 2.95
>
> Please do not reply to this email- if you want to comment on the bug, go to the
> URL shown below and enter your comments there.
>
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=129210
>
> Changed by dalgoda ix netcom com
>
> --- shadow/129210 Wed Jan 7 08:03:27 2004
> +++ shadow/129210.tmp.25974 Wed Jan 7 14:45:38 2004
> @@ -140,6 +140,81 @@
> I am happy to apply a patch for this.
>
> ------- Additional Comments From murrayc usa net 2004-01-07 08:03 -------
> There is a chance that we will not support gcc 2.96 in future, because
> we might use a newer libsigc++ that can not support it. On the mailing
> list I am asking who needs 2.96 and why? Maybe you could reply to that.
> +
> +------- Additional Comments From dalgoda ix netcom com 2004-01-07 14:45 -------
> +Hi.
> +
> +I'm on way too many email lists now as it is (if there was an NNTP
> +interface available, I'd use it). So I'll just comment here. I did
> +read the threads in the archives however.
> +
> +First, let me explain that I have been maintaining my own home-grown
> +Linux system since 1994. It's Linux from scratch before
> +linuxfromscratch existed. I usually keep bleeding edge on most
> +things, but lately (last couple of years or so) I have slacked off a
> +bit and not followed the 2.5 kernels. Since the Linux kernel, for a
> +long time, did not like to build with any gcc-3 [note: I just checked
> +2.6.1-rc2, and at least the docs there still recommend 2.95.x, x>=3],
> +I stuck with gcc-2. This also forced me to stay with glibc-2.2.5.
> +Now, I know that I can run two different versions of gcc, however
> +since the same `gcc' cannot handle -V for 2.x and 3.x (-V only works
> +withing the same major). I didn't feel there was anything to really be
> +gained by upgrading; it wasn't worth the effort of trying to keep gcc2
> +and gcc3 executables.
> +
> +A few other things pushed this as well.
> +
> +For instance, gpc only works with gcc2. And I've always wanted to
> +play with gpc (in my ohhhh so ample spare time :-).
> +
> +It turns out that since gcc2 doesn't support C99 by default, I've
> +discovered a lot of code that would not build against non-C99
> +compilers being put out by people (stuff in Gnome, stuff on CPAN,
> +etc). To paraphrase a well known saying, "All the world is not gcc."
> + With the fact that a lot of compilers are not C99 capable yet, my
> +bleeding edge updates have helped me submit a LOT of patches to
> +various projects. I imagine I could probably configure gcc3 to not do
> + C99 by default, but since I've not looked into upgrading, I've not
> +bothered doing that research.
> +
> +I don't do any C++ programming, so the personal need for the better
> +C++ support simply isn't there.
> +
> +Now, those are the reasons why *I* still use 2.95.*. Basically it
> +comes down to I'm lazy and it's useful for finding issues in the `C'
> +world. But I admit that for C++, it sucks.
> +
> +Some points to consider though:
> +
> +Ignore RedHat completely. 2.96 does not exist. Consider 2.95.3 (or
> +2.95.4 which is really cvs-tip from the 2_95 branch). Just because RH
> +doesn't support the older compiler doesn't mean other people don't.
> +You can buy support for older RH from Progeny. Heck, Sun continues to
> +build Java against RH6.2 or something like that. A better solution
> +would be to look at what Debian supports in their unstable branch (or
> +wherever the comparable gtkmm stuff would live).
> +
> +All the world is not Linux, either. Someone pointed out that one of
> +the BSD's is using gcc-2.95.*. What do other current OS's support in
> +their C++ environments as far as compatibilty goes? I think that's a
> +far better guage.
> +
> +If going to require the newer libsigc++, then yeah, definitely go
> +ahead an use modern C++ features and don't worry about backwards
> +compatibility.
> +
> +However, I would strongly advise against specifically checking against
> + version numbers of compilers. That is just too fragile (regressions,
> +branching, etc) and only works for g++. Instead, do feature checks
> +against whatever C++ compiler is being used. As bug, like this one,
> +appear, then add it as a feature check and say "Your compiler does not
> +support feature XYZ."
> +
> +Well, that's a lot of babbling. :->
> +
> +I guess it could all be summarized with this: Go ahead and require
> +modern C++ features, but try to catch support for them up front with
> +autoconf.
>
>
>
> -- __--__--
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gtkmm-forge mailing list
> Gtkmm-forge lists sourceforge net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gtkmm-forge
>
>
> End of Gtkmm-forge Digest
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 23:31:30 -0500 (EST)
> From: Silviu D Minut <minutsil cse msu edu>
> To: <Murray Cumming Comneon com>
> Cc: <gtkmm-list gnome org>
> Subject: RE: [gtkmm] A Gtkmm Forum
>
> Could we have a newsgroup? Could we move everybody on this list to the
> newsgroup? I find it much more convenient than the mailing list.
>
>
> On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 Murray Cumming Comneon com wrote:
>
> > > I don't know how to use a mailing list.
> >
> > Clearly you do. Just remember to use Reply To All after this and you've
> > understood everything.
> >
> > > Do you think that one
> > > day Gtkmm programmers might have a forum?
> >
> > Feel free to use this, but there are 550 people here, and not many there:
> > http://gnomesupport.org/forums/
> >
> > Murray Cumming
> > www.murrayc.com
> > murrayc usa net
> > _______________________________________________
> > gtkmm-list mailing list
> > gtkmm-list gnome org
> > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtkmm-list
> >
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 21:47:50 -0700
> From: Dean Kutryk <trollking shaw ca>
> To: gtkmm-list gnome org
> Subject: [gtkmm] Re: gtkmm-list digest, Vol 1 #809 - 2 msgs
>
> Can't we come out of the closet and get an operational forums. I'll kick
> in a few dollars even.
>
> On Wed, 2004-01-07 at 10:00, gtkmm-list-request gnome org wrote:
> > Send gtkmm-list mailing list submissions to
> > gtkmm-list gnome org
> >
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtkmm-list
> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> > gtkmm-list-request gnome org
> >
> > You can reach the person managing the list at
> > gtkmm-list-admin gnome org
> >
> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> > than "Re: Contents of gtkmm-list digest..."
> >
> >
> > Today's Topics:
> >
> > 1. A Gtkmm Forum (Dean Kutryk)
> > 2. RE: A Gtkmm Forum (Murray Cumming Comneon com)
> >
> > -- __--__--
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 08:57:41 -0700
> > From: Dean Kutryk <trollking shaw ca>
> > To: gtkmm-list gnome org
> > Subject: [gtkmm] A Gtkmm Forum
> >
> > I don't know how to use a mailing list. Do you think that one day Gtkmm
> > programmers might have a forum?
> >
> >
> >
> > -- __--__--
> >
> > Message: 2
> > From: Murray Cumming Comneon com
> > To: trollking shaw ca, gtkmm-list gnome org
> > Subject: RE: [gtkmm] A Gtkmm Forum
> > Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 17:09:47 +0100
> >
> > > I don't know how to use a mailing list.
> >
> > Clearly you do. Just remember to use Reply To All after this and you've
> > understood everything.
> >
> > > Do you think that one
> > > day Gtkmm programmers might have a forum?
> >
> > Feel free to use this, but there are 550 people here, and not many there:
> > http://gnomesupport.org/forums/
> >
> > Murray Cumming
> > www.murrayc.com
> > murrayc usa net
> >
> >
> > -- __--__--
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > gtkmm-list mailing list
> > gtkmm-list gnome org
> > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtkmm-list
> >
> >
> > End of gtkmm-list Digest
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 6
> Subject: RE: [gtkmm] A Gtkmm Forum
> From: Carl Nygard <cjnygard fast net>
> To: Silviu D Minut <minutsil cse msu edu>
> Cc: Murray Cumming Comneon com, gtkmm-list gnome org
> Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 16:23:23 -0500
>
> On Wed, 2004-01-07 at 23:31, Silviu D Minut wrote:
> > Could we have a newsgroup? Could we move everybody on this list to the
> > newsgroup? I find it much more convenient than the mailing list.
> >
>
> How about a conference call instead? I really enjoy those, especially
> hearing all the silly accents;)
>
> I propose every monday at 4pm (y'all pick the timezone)... oh wait,
> that's Oprah. Where's that XML-TV when you need it...
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 Murray Cumming Comneon com wrote:
> >
> > > > I don't know how to use a mailing list.
> > >
> > > Clearly you do. Just remember to use Reply To All after this and you've
> > > understood everything.
> > >
> > > > Do you think that one
> > > > day Gtkmm programmers might have a forum?
> > >
> > > Feel free to use this, but there are 550 people here, and not many there:
> > > http://gnomesupport.org/forums/
> > >
> > > Murray Cumming
> > > www.murrayc.com
> > > murrayc usa net
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > gtkmm-list mailing list
> > > gtkmm-list gnome org
> > > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtkmm-list
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > gtkmm-list mailing list
> > gtkmm-list gnome org
> > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtkmm-list
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 23:33:42 -0600
> From: Albert Chin <gtkmm-list mlists thewrittenword com>
> To: gtkmm-list gnome org
> Reply-To: gtkmm-list gnome org
> Subject: [gtkmm] Building gtkmm-2.2.8 with HP C++ compiler
>
> Do the following errors make sense to anyone? I'm trying to build
> gtkmm-2.2.8 with the HP C++ compiler on HP-UX 11.00 and 11i.
>
> aCC -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DG_LOG_DOMAIN=\"glibmm\" -Dglibmm_COMPILATION -DG_DISABLE_DEPRECATED -DGDK_DISABLE_DEPRECATED -DGDK_PIXBUF_DISABLE_DEPRECATED -DGTK_DISABLE_DEPRECATED -I../../glib -I../../glib -I../../pango -I../../pango -I../../atk -I../../atk -I../../gdk -I../../gdk -I../../gtk -I../../gtk -I/opt/TWWfsw/libglib22/include -I/opt/TWWfsw/libglib22/lib/include -I/opt/TWWfsw/libsigc++12/lib/include -I/opt/TWWfsw/libsigc++12/include -D_REENTRANT -I/opt/TWWfsw/libglib22/include -I/opt/TWWfsw/libglib22/lib/include +O2 -AA -z +Onofltacc +ESlit +DAportable +Oentrysched +Odataprefetch +Onolimit -c convert.cc +Z -DPIC -o .libs/convert.o
> Error 419: "../../glib/glibmm/ustring.h", line 549 # 'In' is used as a type,
> but has not been defined as a type.
> SequenceToString(In pbegin, In pend);
> ^^
> Error 419: "../../glib/glibmm/ustring.h", line 549 # 'In' is used as a type,
> but has not been defined as a type.
> SequenceToString(In pbegin, In pend);
> ^^
> Error 419: "../../glib/glibmm/ustring.h", line 555 # 'In' is used as a type,
> but has not been defined as a type.
> SequenceToString(In pbegin, In pend);
> ^^
> Error 419: "../../glib/glibmm/ustring.h", line 555 # 'In' is used as a type,
> but has not been defined as a type.
> SequenceToString(In pbegin, In pend);
> ^^
> Error 221: "../../glib/glibmm/ustring.h", line 705 # Member 'SequenceToString'
> not declared in struct SequenceToString<#1,char>
> ["../../glib/glibmm/ustring.h", line 547].
> ustring::SequenceToString<In,char>::SequenceToString(In pbegin, In pend)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Warning (anachronism) 600: "../../glib/glibmm/ustring.h", line 705 # Type
> specifier is omitted; "int" is no longer assumed.
> ustring::SequenceToString<In,char>::SequenceToString(In pbegin, In pend)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Error 188: "../../glib/glibmm/ustring.h", line 707 # Member and base class
> initializers may only be used in constructors.
> std::string(pbegin, pend)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Error 221: "../../glib/glibmm/ustring.h", line 711 # Member 'SequenceToString'
> not declared in struct SequenceToString<#1,unsigned int>
> ["../../glib/glibmm/ustring.h", line 553].
> ustring::SequenceToString<In,gunichar>::SequenceToString(In pbegin, In pend
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Error 174: "../../glib/glibmm/ustring.h", line 711 # Function redefinition;
> previously defined as "int Glib::SequenceToString(#1,#1)" at
> ["../../glib/glibmm/ustring.h", line 705].
> ustring::SequenceToString<In,gunichar>::SequenceToString(In pbegin, In pend
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Error 445: "../../glib/glibmm/ustring.h", line 711 # Cannot recover from
> earlier errors.
> ustring::SequenceToString<In,gunichar>::SequenceToString(In pbegin, In pend
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> gmake[5]: *** [convert.lo] Error 1
> gmake[5]: Leaving directory `/opt/build/gtkmm-2.2.8/glib/glibmm'
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]
