On 07-08-2014 15:43, Ken Moffat wrote: > On Tue, Aug 05, 2014 at 11:21:22PM +0100, Ken Moffat wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 05, 2014 at 06:04:05PM -0300, Fernando de Oliveira wrote: >> >> Yes, I saw that, so I was half expecting a problem, but this was a >> compile problem. >> >>> >>> After spending some hours, I came with this idea, and produced a patch. >>> >>> Please, try the attached patch reverting that commit. It is compressed, >>> uncompressed size > 70KB. If it works, how should we submit: .patch.xz >>> or .patch >>> >> >> Thanks for that! I've got a "throwaway" build going on my other >> desktop machine, to test a few things and to give me somewhere clean >> to play with possible solutions for inkscape. At the moment it is >> about 1 hour into LFS's chroot. It might be a day or two before it >> gets far enough for me to test this (inkscape is the last package in >> my normal build). >> > > I've no idea where you found libsigc++ development (google seems > not to know), but that patch fixed the build for me. Looking at the > inkscape lists, it looks as if 0.91-pre2 [ a development pre-release ] > might be out soon, but I guess we want to avoid that.
I cannot remember all the path used to arrive there. Message announcing API break: <https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg00710.html> There, you have the links: <https://git.gnome.org/browse/libsigc++2/commit/?id=81c778422768f14eb9ed18645a0a4352dd37c2cb> <https://developer.gnome.org/libsigc++/2.2/structsigc_1_1adapts.html> <https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=724496> In git gnome, I found the commit and respective patch: <https://git.gnome.org/browse/libsigc++2/patch/?id=81c778422768f14eb9ed18645a0a4352dd37c2cb> which I used to revert (-R), and make our patch. > The patch is not headed, and some of the hunks seem to be just > whitespace cleanups [ the first hunk of each m4 file ], but I guess > it is more straightforward to apply it in its entirety. For > .patch.xz we used to use one for gimp-help-2.8.0 (to fix the catalan > language) with > > xzcat ../patch-name.xz | patch -p1 && > > ĸen > I have a doubt: what to put in the Upstream Status: "does not apply in this case, see Description", and in Description: "... Revert API breaking commit from upstream..."? Also. Origin: Upstream? -- []s, Fernando -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
