On Tuesday 26 January 2010, Derek Atkins wrote: > Christian Stimming <[email protected]> writes: > > The problem with glade2/glade3 is that it is getting increasingly > > difficult to obtain a glade-2 program. For example, the recent Ubuntu > > versions (which I happen to use) don't offer any glade-2 package > > anymore, only glade-3. > > > > Also, please keep a close look on what actually has changed here: > > Except from the removed DOCTYPE line at the top of the file, the rest > > of the changes are *solely* indentation changes. As Geert already > > pointed out: It is important to keep the correct "interface-requires" > > comment line in there, but apart from this, I can't see that any of > > our target platforms wouldn't be able to read this file. > > Fair enough. I didn't take a very close look at what exactly changed in > the file. It's hard to follow some indentation changes. > > > A completely different issue is the question whether we allow the > > usage of new widgets, which would increase the required minimum gtk > > version. We decided not to do this ATM, but this discussion is > > orthogonal to whether the glade xml indentations should be kept at > > glade-2 or can be upgraded to glade-3 file by file. > > Point made. Yes, we shouldn't require newer widgets yet. But you're > right that file indentation doesn't matter. So long as an older > libglade will read the file then I don't really have any objection. > ... which I just confirmed empirically. I have built GC on CentOS 5 without webkit and without libdbi.
It could read the glade file without issues, except for a warning in gnucash.trace: * 16:55:22 WARN <libglade> unknown property `caps_lock_warning' for class `GtkEntry' IMHO that's only a cosmetic issue that can be ignored. Geert _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
