On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Keith Richie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], > excerpted below, on Fri, 04 Apr 2008 09:51:18 -0400: > > > </div></div></blockquote></div><br><br>Here's another patch for Pan > > against Gnome 2.22 fixing g_assert problems<br><br><a > > href="http://mail.gnome.org/archives/garnome-list/2008-April/ > msg00000.html">http://mail.gnome.org/archives/garnome-list/2008-April/ > msg00000.html</a><br> > > <br><br> > > Please don't get the wrong idea here, but... > > First, could you please kill the HTML in your posts? I know you're using > gmail but that doesn't mean everybody does. There's a reason pan doesn't > do HTML. Please respect that on the pan lists at least, even if you > can't be bothered to respect no-HTML readers elsewhere.
Damn how the hell did that happen? Gremlins I tell you. Gremlins. I can't stand html messages in a mailing list looks like crap in Pan. Which is where I usually post and read this list from, but already had to sessions opened and didn't want to lose my place. I don't even like html email messages. > > Second, for a moment there I thought it was all an Inkscape patch! =8^( I > was just quick-scanning and suddenly saw inkscape and not pan. ) If > you'd have mentioned "(and inkscape)" or something similar, it would have > prevented a bit of confusion on my part. =8^) Just wanted to add some spice to your life :) > > Now on topic... > > I'm tracking this bug in four different places, here, the gnome/pan > bugzilla, the Gentoo bugzilla, and now in the upline-referenced mail > exchange as I test Dan's patches, and I'm losing track of what's been > mentioned where so this may be covering old ground, but yes, that (basic) > patch is floating around. > > The problem with it is that it's glib 2.16 specific, since the newly > named file exists in 2.16 but not earlier versions. Just replacing the > same references with glib.h is a bit more "proper", and cures the problem > for 2.14 and 2.16, but it's not backward compatible beyond 2.14, breaking > 2.12 and earlier, and ideally we want to keep that compatibility if > possible. Tracing the remaining problems with the still broken broad > compatibility version is what's taking the time. > > That said, thanks. One more discussion of the glib breakage to add to > the list. > > -- > > > Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. > "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- > and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman > > > > _______________________________________________ > Pan-users mailing list > Pan-users@nongnu.org > http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pan-users > That's something I don't understand. Why there would be a want to retain backwards compatibility with an older version of glib that is from July 2007 (2.12.13) Granted Debian Stable uses this version, but there is also a .deb for pan 0.132. I don't see the correlation between an individual using a "Stable" distro with an older tool chain, and wondering why new svn releases aren't compatible? Not a stab, or a complaint, just something I don't get. _______________________________________________ Pan-users mailing list Pan-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pan-users
