2006/12/28, Derek Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Mark Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > A new version of libgda has been released. It is 2.99.2. They have > > bumped the ABI version to 3.0. Consequently, libgda-2.0.pc is now > > libgda-3.0.pc. Therefore, after upgrading to libgda 2.99.2, the build > > in gda-dev branch fails. > > Was there even ever a libgda-2.0 stable release??
No, becouse a library name conflicts with the actual 1.2 series. > > > Further feedback on gda-dev: > > configure did not fail when libgda-2.0.pc was not present. The > > configure.in should be updated to have an option to enable/disable this > > backend (like the --enable-sql option for postgresql). When the libgda > > is not present and the option is enabled, the configure should fail > > rather than the build. > > I guess it depends if GDA is going to be optional or not. We could > do something like what libofx does in terms of AC_MSG_WARN vs > AC_MSG_ERROR > Or compile conditionals like in GDA, when it doesn't find a .pc file for a specific provider it ignores it and just compile the existing one. > > I've attached a trivial (stop-gap) patch to illustrate what I am > > currently testing (i.e. simply to see if gnucash gda-dev builds with > > libgda-3.0). This is not what I am suggesting as the mod to > > configure.in. I'll work on that later. > > > > So far gnucash gda-dev is still building, which is a good sign, but it > > will be morning before I know if the build succeeded. > > If it works with either, do we want to allow either? Perhaps test for > -3.0 and if it's not there fall back to -2.0? Definitely interested > in hearing your results. > Must be compiled using 3.0 (or beta) becouse the 2.0 never will see the streets. -- Trabajar, la mejor arma para tu superación "de grano en grano, se hace la arena" (R) (entrámite, pero para los cuates: LIBRE) _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
