Re: Problems building 2.0 API; gtkmmproc error after update

[Toralf Lund <toralf procaptura com>]

Murray Cumming wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-02-27 at 15:46 +0100, Toralf Lund wrote:
>   
> > Murray Cumming wrote:
> >     
> > > On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 23:43 +0100, Toralf Lund wrote: 
> > >   
> > >       
> > > > [ ... ]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >         
> > Yeah, it may seem like the signal handler return types changed at some 
> > point, although I though they shouldn't based on the fact that GTK+ is 
> > supposed to have a completely stable API...
> >     
>
> There have been very tiny mistakes like this in the past, and small
> differences of opinion about what is public API and what is a break.
> gtkmm only notices them because we use almost the whole API.
>   
Yeah, I suppose the functions and pointers we're talking about here may 
at least be considered more "internal" or "private" than a large 
proportion of the gtk_... calls.
>   
> > I'm not sure what GTK+ version I tried to build with, as I'm on a 
> > different machine now, but I would assume it was more or less the latest 
> > and greatest. What version I had last time it worked is probably 
> > impossible to tell now...
> >     
> > > Can't you just use a newer version of gtkmm?
> > >   
> > >       
> > That's not really the question here. We're talking about a special build 
> > system on MacOS X, which is supposed to support a "package" for the 
> > Gtkmm 2.0 API, only now this support is broken. There's still a question 
> > of whether anybody will actually use it, of course, but gtk and gtkmm 
> > 1.2 are also supported, if you know what I'm saying...
> >
> > In any case, my question is really what I generally need to change (i.e. 
> > which source files etc.) in order to fix problems like this. Is there 
> > some sort of guideline etc?
> >     
>
> In this case you should probably just patch the generated .h/cc files.
>   
Yes. Perhaps that's the best idea here. I'm always trying to do things 
the "correct" way with respect to auto-generated sources etc, you know, 
but maybe it's just silly to be particular about this for something that 
was just supposed to be a quick-fix that I wasn't necessarily going to 
use...

- Toralf