On Tue, 2011-11-22 at 18:04 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote: > On Tue, 2011-11-22 at 14:04 +0000, Peter Robinson wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 8:13 PM, Patrick Ohly <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > Hello! > > > > > > Does anyone need anything fixed in 1.2.1? > > > > 1.2 fails to build in F-17. I'm not sure if that's because of the > > glib2 deprecations being turned on or eds changes for 3.3.x (or a > > combination of both). A full build log is here > > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=3532017&name=build.log > > but I've not had a chance to look at it any closer. > > Looks to me like it fails because of including specific glib headers > instead of glib.h. The function deprecation is just a warning. > > Can you try replacing all <glib/*.h> include statements with <glib.h> > and provide the patch? Would it be okay to ship 1.2.1 without that > patch? Just trying to find out how important it is.
As I added some other patches to 1.2.1 anyway, I also replaced the glib/* include statements: commit e56c2b245abab5d2df15884e1ed782f9c0e5e0ee Author: Patrick Ohly <[email protected]> Date: Fri Nov 25 14:19:06 2011 +0000 glib: avoid including glib/*.h headers directly Recent glib deprecates the direct inclusion of some of its headers, in favor of including glib.h. Doing that here whenever possible. gi18n.h still needs to be included directly (otherwise it doesn't compile on Debian Testing with glib 2.28). Not sure about gio. I'm keeping the gio/ includes because they are relevant on platforms where gio was not yet part of glib. -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter. _______________________________________________ SyncEvolution mailing list [email protected] http://lists.syncevolution.org/listinfo/syncevolution
