Re: [Evolution-hackers] dgettext abuse?
On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 12:10 +0100, Stefan Schmitt wrote: > On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 13:57 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote: > > > I think that the GNOME clock uses this trick too. I'd be interested in > > seeing the correct way to do it in C. > > I'll start working on this today. At the moment I'm trying to set up the > CVS source tree that compiles properly in a chroot so that Evolution > runs on the Xnest server. I haven't had any success on that so far because evolution-data-server complains about some version conflict immediately after startup. The point is that I don't want to mess up my production environment and I can't get the CVS version to work properly in a chroot. Would you mind if I do the the patches on the 2.2 or 2.4 source code? ATM I run 2.2.3 from Debian testing. Stefan ___ Evolution-hackers mailing list Evolution-hackers@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Re: evolution and pango in 2.13.90 don't play nice
> At gentoo, we patched the gtkhtml-2.13.90 tarball. A new one would be > nice, but is not necessary. > fwiw, I rolled out Gtkhtml-2.13.90.1 tarballs yesterday that have Matthias' fix for the pango issue. Regards, Harish ___ Evolution-hackers mailing list Evolution-hackers@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Regarding the commit made in plugins/mail-to-task/MakeFile.am
On Thu, 2006-02-02 at 12:15 +0530, Harish Krishnaswamy wrote: > On Wed, 2006-02-01 at 14:09 +0530, chen wrote: > > > > Now the file org-gnome-mail-to-task.xml will not be added in the > > tarballs. The menu item will not appear in the evolution main menu under > > Message. Is there any reason for this commit and was it approved by > > anyone ? > > > > As per Kjartan's comments on > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=326284, the plugins related > patch was committed accidentally before the review. On a first cut, I > had decided not to revert the changes since almost all of the changes > were harmless compiler warning fixes. > > As it turns out, Murphy's law prevails :-). > It is obvious that the exclusion of the file from the dist target was > not an intended change in the patch and hence must be reversed. Yes right :). I just saw this issue from a warning in the terminal while running evolution. I did not know that it was committed as part of the bug by mistake, just saw this commit alone. Am sorry, i should have been more patient. thanks, Chenthill. > Harish > > > ___ Evolution-hackers mailing list Evolution-hackers@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Regarding the commit made in plugins/mail-to-task/MakeFile.am
On Wed, 2006-02-01 at 14:09 +0530, chen wrote: > > Now the file org-gnome-mail-to-task.xml will not be added in the > tarballs. The menu item will not appear in the evolution main menu under > Message. Is there any reason for this commit and was it approved by > anyone ? > As per Kjartan's comments on http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=326284, the plugins related patch was committed accidentally before the review. On a first cut, I had decided not to revert the changes since almost all of the changes were harmless compiler warning fixes. As it turns out, Murphy's law prevails :-). It is obvious that the exclusion of the file from the dist target was not an intended change in the patch and hence must be reversed. Harish ___ Evolution-hackers mailing list Evolution-hackers@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Re: evolution and pango in 2.13.90 don't play nice
On Tue, 2006-01-31 at 13:50 -0700, Elijah Newren wrote: > On 1/31/06, Matthias Clasen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > gtkhtml does some unkosher things with PangoGlyphItems, > > and recent pango changes have turned that into a crash: > > > > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=329344 > > > > I think we probably need a new gtkhtml tarball with the fix > > for 2.13.90. > > It turns out that it only affects the most recent pango release, which > was made after the deadline so strictly speaking this doesn't affect > the 2.13.90 release. However, the distros shipping with 2.13 (fedora, > ubuntu, maybe sun?) will probably start shipping the newer pango so > it'd almost certainly be worth making an extra release before .91 to > fix this issue. At gentoo, we patched the gtkhtml-2.13.90 tarball. A new one would be nice, but is not necessary. Daniel ___ Evolution-hackers mailing list Evolution-hackers@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
