Re: [Evolution-hackers] Build failure in evolution 2.30.0 (was Re: Patch for Evo 2.30 - size of mail sidebar)

2010-03-30 Thread Matthew Barnes
On Tue, 2010-03-30 at 04:10 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote: Can we get a 2.30.0.1 tarball that uses some non-deprecated API or, even better, that doesn't use -DGTK_DISABLE_DEPRECATED by default? Even better, can we get a macro added to gnome-common that implements this deprecation flag policy, and

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Build failure in evolution 2.30.0 (was Re: Patch for Evo 2.30 - size of mail sidebar)

2010-03-30 Thread Matthew Barnes
On Tue, 2010-03-30 at 15:35 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote: Le mardi 30 mars 2010, à 09:18 -0400, Matthew Barnes a écrit : Even better, can we get a macro added to gnome-common that implements this deprecation flag policy, and perhaps even set a GNOME Goal for it? Sure, it'd be nice to have

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Build failure in evolution 2.30.0 (was Re: Patch for Evo 2.30 - size of mail sidebar)

2010-03-30 Thread chen
On Tue, 2010-03-30 at 10:18 -0400, Matthew Barnes wrote: On Tue, 2010-03-30 at 15:35 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote: Le mardi 30 mars 2010, à 09:18 -0400, Matthew Barnes a écrit : Even better, can we get a macro added to gnome-common that implements this deprecation flag policy, and perhaps

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Build failure in evolution 2.30.0 (was Re: Patch for Evo 2.30 - size of mail sidebar)

2010-03-30 Thread Federico Mena Quintero
On Tue, 2010-03-30 at 04:10 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote: Can we get a 2.30.0.1 tarball that uses some non-deprecated API or, even better, that doesn't use -DGTK_DISABLE_DEPRECATED by default? Ugh, sorry about the breakage. I'm building Evo on GTK+ for GNOME 2.28; that's why I didn't notice