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

Re: [pio-develop] New "translation update" for pioneers



On Tue, 2010-10-26 at 20:41 +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> Op 26-10-10 20:14, Julien Cristau schreef:
> > On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 20:00:35 +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> > 
> >> +#if (GTK_MAJOR_VERSION <= 2 && GTK_MINOR_VERSION <= 18 &&
> >> GTK_MICRO_VERSION < 2)
> >>         GtkWidget *button;
> >> +#endif
> >>
> > That check seems broken, it will consider, say, 2.12.12 as fixed.
> 
> Good catch! These sort of things are the reason I might better include
> only the translations. :-)
> 
> > It's also a build time check instead of a runtime one...
> 
> Hmm, I suppose it is possible to run the executable with a lower version
> of the library than was used to compile it. It's not using any symbols
> which are new in 2.18.2, so dpkg-shlibdeps will generate a dependency on
> a lower version, right? In that case we do indeed need a runtime check.
> 
> Roland, I think it's best if I make any required changes for this Debian
> package, and we include them in the next release (which will not go into
> squeeze) separately. What do you think?

The patch for gtkbugs.c was included because Debian Testing (at some
time Debian Stable) includes a version that is new enough that this code
doesn't need to be present. The #if part can be removed from the patch,
it should work anyway.
The part in gtkbugs.c was also aimed at systems that have the same
runtime version or newer than the version that was used at build time
(even though that's not explicitly tested).

I still think 0.12.3.1 could be included in the new Debian Stable
release. The translations are better, and a bug that renders half the
themes unusable is fixed.

A few hours ago I announced a string freeze for 0.12.4, so the next
release of Debian can include that updated version, I hope the new
Debian Stable can include 0.12.3.1.

With kind regards,
Roland Clobus

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: