On Sat, 2008-08-30 at 23:19 -0300, Margarita Manterola wrote: > On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 10:17 PM, Sami Liedes <sliedes@cc.hut.fi> wrote: > > The only questionable case I found > > by this sampling is dia, where the file is "generated by Glade and > > then hand-coded to make GNOME optional and add the underline for > > accelerated buttons". > > And what's there to question, then? > > This is exactly the case I was talking about. Some people might use > glade to generate a .c as a starting point, and then continue editing > the file (or not, but just keep the .c file, once it's been > generated). This is perfectly fine, and we do NOT need the .glade > files used. (Especially when glade-3 does not actually support generating any C code or updating the C source code files output by glade-2.) Any bugs filed so far should be closed forthwith. The comment is old, it relates to a function of Glade that was removed by Glade upstream and whether the .glade file is distributed or not, the C can no longer be generated with the current version of glade. All this process has really shown is that upstream teams are commonly lazy about removing old comments. Yawn. Sorry, Sami, but this was a waste of effort. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part