guile-gtk-general
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: what GNOME version for guile-gobject?


From: Andreas Rottmann
Subject: Re: what GNOME version for guile-gobject?
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 12:46:50 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux)

Silvio Neef <address@hidden> writes:

> Hi,
>
> I want to do some prototyping for a GTK2 application in guile, and am
> running into some version trouble (I think) building guile-gnome. So
> I've got some newbie questions. (I'm also new to arch, so forgive me
> if this is a bit lengthy).
>
>   1) I grabbed guile-gobject-0.5.3 from
>      http://people.debian.org/~rotty/arch/address@hidden/2004/
>   
>   2) aclocal complained about AM_GWRAP_something, so I thought maybe I
>      need g-wrap, and got g-wrap--main from
>      http://people.debian.org/~rlb/arch/g-wrap/
>      Is that ok? There seem to be other g-wrap's around.
>   
guile-gobject, as in the main archive, needs G-Wrap 1.3.4. So you
should be OK.

>   3) Tweaked some Makefile.am's (sed out the '-Werror' flags),
>      configure.in (config.h related)
>   
>   4) Now it complains about not finding ATK_TYPE_NO_OP_OBJECT_FACTORY.
>   
> Does guile-gobject only work above a certain version of GNOME 2? I am
> (and need to be) on a stock RedHat 8.0 system (gnome 2.0 I believe).
>
Can you please give the exact GNOME and GTK version? guile-gobject
0.5.3 should work with GNOME 2.2, I believe.

> Is there documentation about guile-gnome's requirements?
>
We are currently in a restructuring phase, which should be finished
soon. Tarballs for GNOME 2.6 will then be available (but we could also
release GNOME 2.4 tarballs, if people want to have that).

HTH, Andy
-- 
Andreas Rottmann         | address@hidden      | address@hidden | address@hidden
http://yi.org/rotty      | GnuPG Key: http://yi.org/rotty/gpg.asc
Fingerprint              | DFB4 4EB4 78A4 5EEE 6219  F228 F92F CFC5 01FD 5B62

Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct,
not tried it.  -- Donald E. Knuth




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]