Re: [Pan-users] Re: Anyone get pan compiling with gcc 4.3 yet?

[Keith Richie]

On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Duncan <address@hidden> wrote:
> "Keith Richie" <address@hidden>
>  posted address@hidden,
>  excerpted below, on  Fri, 04 Apr 2008 09:51:18 -0400:
>
>  > </div></div></blockquote></div><br><br>Here&#39;s another patch for Pan
>  > against Gnome 2.22 fixing g_assert problems<br><br><a
>  > href="http://mail.gnome.org/archives/garnome-list/2008-April/
>  msg00000.html">http://mail.gnome.org/archives/garnome-list/2008-April/
>  msg00000.html</a><br>
>  > <br><br>
>
>  Please don't get the wrong idea here, but...
>
>  First, could you please kill the HTML in your posts?  I know you're using
>  gmail but that doesn't mean everybody does.  There's a reason pan doesn't
>  do HTML.  Please respect that on the pan lists at least, even if you
>  can't be bothered to respect no-HTML readers elsewhere.


Damn how the hell did that happen? Gremlins I tell you. Gremlins.
I can't stand html messages in a mailing list looks like crap in Pan.
Which is where I usually post and read this list from, but already had
to sessions opened and didn't want to lose my place.

I don't even like html email messages.

>
>  Second, for a moment there I thought it was all an Inkscape patch! =8^( I
>  was just quick-scanning and suddenly saw inkscape and not pan. )  If
>  you'd have mentioned "(and inkscape)" or something similar, it would have
>  prevented a bit of confusion on my part. =8^)


Just wanted to add some spice to your life :)


>
>  Now on topic...
>
>  I'm tracking this bug in four different places, here, the gnome/pan
>  bugzilla, the Gentoo bugzilla, and now in the upline-referenced mail
>  exchange as I test Dan's patches, and I'm losing track of what's been
>  mentioned where so this may be covering old ground, but yes, that (basic)
>  patch is floating around.
>
>  The problem with it is that it's glib 2.16 specific, since the newly
>  named file exists in 2.16 but not earlier versions.  Just replacing the
>  same references with glib.h is a bit more "proper", and cures the problem
>  for 2.14 and 2.16, but it's not backward compatible beyond 2.14, breaking
>  2.12 and earlier, and ideally we want to keep that compatibility if
>  possible.  Tracing the remaining problems with the still broken broad
>  compatibility version is what's taking the time.
>
>  That said, thanks.  One more discussion of the glib breakage to add to
>  the list.
>
>  --
>
>
> Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
>  "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
>  and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman
>
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  Pan-users mailing list
>  address@hidden
>  http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pan-users
>


That's something I don't understand. Why there would be a want to
retain backwards compatibility with an older version of glib that is
from July 2007 (2.12.13) Granted Debian Stable uses this version, but
there is also a .deb for pan 0.132. I don't see the correlation
between an individual using a "Stable" distro with an older tool
chain, and wondering why new svn releases aren't compatible?

Not a stab, or a complaint, just something I don't get.