Re: Bug#402692: Status of KeyFile regressions in glib2.0
On Sun, Dec 31, 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> If such a patch is in, and can be verified to work by the people who
> reported the bug against gnucash, then I have no objections (on this
> score) to the migration of glib into testing. Can you let me know when
> an upload is made so that it can be conveniently tested?
I had uploaded at the time of my previous message; the files are now
visible in incoming.d.o.
> > It would be best if Gnucash switched as soon as possible to stricter
> > key names.
> gnucash upstream is working on the problem. However, a serious
> deficiency with this particular change was that it did not make any
> sensible *conversion* possible. When new strictness rules are created
> out of whole cloth, it is crucial to provide for transition, and not
> just decree a new rule. It appears that glib is very unlikely to do
> anything to help with the transition, which creates major extra work.
> If you could impress this upon the upstream maintainers, it would be
> great.
I've proposed using the patch to revert to the previous level of
compatibility in the 2.12.x series of glib in the upstream bug report
(to effectively postpone and warn of the change until the next major
glib release).
--
Loïc Minier <lool@dooz.org>
"Forget your stupid theme park! I'm gonna make my own! With hookers!
And blackjack! In fact, forget the theme park!" -- Bender
Reply to: