On Wed, 7 May 2008 15:52:20 +0100, David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So, what is the default build command now? Maybe it is better than my > current one :-) > > Yes, I changed the default build command to add the "-g3 -lm" flags. > The funny thing is that the upgrade kept my modification (the "-g3 > -lm" flags) but destroyed the part that was inside the default > command (-o "%e"). If it were the other way round, it would be as > usual, but this way is strange...
No, this is what it is intended to be. If it were the other way round, users would have problems when they upgrade Geany. I missed in the last mail to go into more detail about the change: In Geany 0.13 and before, the default build command was: gcc -Wall "%f" the necessary "-o name" arguments were added by Geany automatically. Since Geany 0.14, the -o argument has to be specified explicitly in the build command, so the new default build command is: gcc -Wall -o "%e" "%f" This way the build command is much more flexible and can be used also with other compilers which don't have the -o option or use it in a different way. > > What do you suggest to solve the problem? > > It's not really possible anymore, IMO. > > On the one hand, can't the mismatch between the gcc output and the > execution script be fixed?. Not really. By default there is no mismatch and so there is nothing to be fixed. It only affects users who manually changed the build command before Geany 0.14. Fixing it would require detecting the problem and this would add the possibility of detecting the mismatch falsely and so break the user's build command although it was working before. Then we would have a real regression. > On the other hand, I would suggest the upload of a new revision to > prevent the bug from affecting sid users that have not upgraded geany > yet, and before this version of geany migrates to testing. Ok, this is up to Damián if he wants to add some patches or anything for the Debian package. But I don't think we will release anything new upstream because of this. > > Unfortunately, I missed to note > > that in the release announcement, not sure if it would have changed > > anything. > > I am not sure about the effectiveness of this. Nobody reads the > release notes, because it is actually impossible because of the > limitation of 24 hours per day :-) Yes but if I had done so I simply could say: read the release notes, there were a warning ;-). Regards, Enrico -- Get my GPG key from http://www.uvena.de/pub.asc
pgpQGbG1pirFf.pgp
Description: PGP signature
