On Monday 31 October 2005 5:45 pm, Karl Hegbloom wrote: > > ...but the issue here isn't x86_64 specific: the GSF_CLASS_FULL macro > > errors in the lib/goffice/ code are due to a macro signature difference > > in <=libgsf-1.12.1 and >=libgsf-1.12.2. > > > > Neil Williams had put in a check re: libgoffice / libgsf to work around > > this on his Debian Unstable box. What system-installed versions of > > libgsf and libgoffice do you have? > > libgsf-1-dev 1.12.3-3ubuntu3 > libgsf-gnome-1-dev 1.12.3-3ubuntu3 > > libgoffice-1-dev was not installed at all. I just installed version > 0.0.4-1, also from Ubuntu.
With goffice 0.0.4 installed, G2 will omit the internal goffice code and bypass the macro problem. > I don't know how it was able to finish 'configure' and compile as much > as it did if it requires libgoffice. Perhaps a 'configure.in' check for > that is not present? It probably would fail to link without it. I still need to update configure.in to prompt for goffice if libgsf-1 >= 1.12.2 but it's best to get the G2 branch merged into HEAD and the change to SVN before I go tweaking configure.in again. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgpkyMpsVKlwO.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel