In regard to: Re: Print plug-in, Glyph Lefkowitz said (at 3:24pm on Feb 1,...:
>
>On Tue, 1 Feb 2000, Tim Mooney wrote:
>
>> I agree that would be the best solution, but I'm afraid it's not that
>> easy. I've submitted quite a few very small portability patches against
>> ORBit from as far back as the 0.3.X days, and virtually every one of my
>> patches has been rejected. I've had very good luck getting portability
>> patches accepted and integrated into all the other gnome components I've
>> tackled, but not ORBit. I'm not alone, either. I've spoken with another
>> person that's had much the same experience, though I think they were more
>> tenacious than I was, and after quite a bit of arguing they did get some
>> of their patches integrated into CVS.
>
>Hm. Is there some sort of rationale behind the rejection of these
>patches?
In most cases, the response was along the lines of "your compiler is broken,
it builds and works fine for me". In one case, that response was correct.
In all the other cases, I don't believe that response was the appropriate one.
Before I report a build problem in *any* package, I generally test the
build on multiple different platforms, to make sure that the one
vendor's compiler doesn't "stand alone" regarding a particular peice of
code. Most of the portability problems I reported were errors for multiple
different vendor compilers, so a "broken compiler" is probably not the
problem.
> I mean, as much as I would like to defend gnome (and especially,
>their use of CORBA), when looking at ORBit, even a cursory glance reveals
>gccisms and unnecessary dependencies...
gcc-isms are without a doubt the biggest problem. Most of them are relatively
easy to fix, too.
Tim
--
Tim Mooney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Information Technology Services (701) 231-1076 (Voice)
Room 242-J1, IACC Building (701) 231-8541 (Fax)
North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105-5164
