Re: build problems

[Ed]

2008/5/27 Ben Pfaff <address@hidden>:
> Hi Ed.  Pleased to meet you.

Hi

> John Darrington writes:
>> My recollection is that there were two problems.  Editing po/Makevars
>> only solved one of them.  Unfortunately I don't remember the exact details.
>
> I wish that I had documented the problem that 0.16.1 caused,
> either in ChangeLog or the CVS commit log.  But it looks like I
> didn't.
>
> I'm kind of inclined to drop the requirement back to 0.16.1,
> because it's bad to tell people "you need 0.17" and not why they
> need it.

I think the problem might have been that .q files aren't parsed
successfully by 0.16.1 (at least I noticed when building last night a
stream of errors about "suffix .q not recognised". This means those
parts won't be internationalised properly without 0.17. Would an
acceptable compromise be to add an autoconf warning if gettext is <
0.17 that some text may not be translated?

>> (2) gperf
..
> Is that good enough?

Yes, I think it was overly fussy to complain about this.

> I haven't looked at your patch, but I guess it sounds reasonable
> to me to try to accept patches to support older GTK+, as long as
> you don't expect us to be able to support those versions forever.
> Debian is in the midst of the release process, which will bring
> GTK+ 2.12 into stable.  At that point, I assume that you wouldn't
> mind us dropping the backward-compatibility support?  I don't
> think it would be a problem to support 2.8 for 6 months or a
> year.

I'd be happy to drop support soon after Debian/stable catches up (or
come October when my PhD finishes!) I just can't risk my machine until
then, but would like to contribute (I suppose I could work without GUI
if its a problem, but in my experience, its best to keep everyone on
as close a page as possible, otherwise you start breaking the bits
that you don't see day to day).

Ed