Hiya,
On 31/01/2016 11:10, Kazunobu Kuriyama wrote:
Hi,
Hopefully, the attached patch fixes the both issues.
Yep, much neater. Many thanks.
Best regards,
Kazunobu Kuriyama
2016-01-31 18:37 GMT+09:00 Mike Williams
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>:
Hi,
I have been catching up with latest changes on a BSD system and
their has been a regression in the build over the last month. This
seems to have started with 7.4.994 to replace
gdk_pixbuf_new_from_inline().
Two issues
1) Makefile can no longer be used with BSD make, it requires gmake.
This would be a new dependency when building on BSD systems. The
error message is:
Using $< in a non-suffix rule context is a GNUmake idiom (Makefile:2651)
which is the rule for auto/gui_gtk_gresources.h. There will be the
same issue for the .c version of the file. Just need to manually
expand $< which leads on to the next problem.
2) Build failure on BSD systems using older versions of gdk-pixbuf.
The same problem occurs with gmake but the build continues. For
these systems GLIB_COMPILE_RESOURCES does not get defined so when
make runs the rule it attempts to run the arguments to
glib-compile-resources. For BSD make this results in the following:
--target=auto/gui_gtk_gresources.h --sourcedir=../pixmaps --generate
--c-name=gui_gtk --manual-register gui_gtk_res.xml
/bin/sh: /bin/sh: --: unknown option
*** Error 1 in src (Makefile:2651 'auto/gui_gtk_gresources.h')
With gmake:
target=auto/gui_gtk_gresources.h --sourcedir=../pixmaps --generate
--c-name=gui_gtk --manual-register gui_gtk_res.xml
/bin/sh: --sourcedir=../pixmaps: not found
Makefile:2651: recipe for target 'auto/gui_gtk_gresources.h' failed
gmake[1]: [auto/gui_gtk_gresources.h] Error 127 (ignored)
Attached is a diff to fix these issues (overly long lines though),
but I have not tested with a system with the required version of
gdk-pixbuf. I also see that running make twice in a row builds
gui_gtk_x11.c each time, although no code has changed.
I assume Unix systems with older versions gdk-pixbuf would continue
work ok with the older API. If so, then building current VIM on
them has lost functionality which seems a shame.
TTFN
Mike
--
I'm discriminating. You're choosy. He's picky.
--
--
You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
--- You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "vim_dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected]
<mailto:vim_dev%[email protected]>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
--
You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "vim_dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Mike
--
I'm discriminating. You're choosy. He's picky.
--
--
You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
