Hello! The gtk+ patch is now in core-updates.
2017-12-05 8:07 GMT+01:00 Gábor Boskovits <boskov...@gmail.com>: > FAIL: abicheck.sh > PASS: pltcheck.sh > ============================================================ > ================ > Testsuite summary for gtk+ 2.24.31 > ============================================================ > ================ > # TOTAL: 3 > # PASS: 2 > # SKIP: 0 > # XFAIL: 0 > # FAIL: 1 > # XPASS: 0 > # ERROR: 0 > ============================================================ > ================ > See gtk/test-suite.log > Please report to http://bugzilla.gnome.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=gtk%2B > ============================================================ > ================ > > This is what I have now. > > FAIL: abicheck.sh > ================= > > --- expected-abi 2017-12-05 05:45:34.472000000 +0000 > +++ actual-abi 2017-12-05 05:45:34.508000000 +0000 > @@ -1,3 +1,4 @@ > +g_cclosure_marshal_BOOLEAN__BOXED_BOXED > gtk_about_dialog_get_artists > gtk_about_dialog_get_authors > gtk_about_dialog_get_comments > FAIL abicheck.sh (exit status: 1 > > This is the log. > > > > 2017-12-04 20:15 GMT+01:00 Leo Famulari <l...@famulari.name>: > >> On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 04:44:00PM +0100, Gábor Boskovits wrote: >> > Now that this problem around glibc is resolved, I think I will do some >> > history rewrite, so that these reverts, reverting the revert.... does >> not >> > show up. >> > I 'm also willing to rename the branch to have wip in the name, as this >> > seems to be standard for longer runnig parts. WDYT? >> >> In general, we don't rewrite history of any public branches on our >> Savannah instance, except for branches whose name starts with "wip-". >> That, is "work in progress". >> >> But of course we can all follow our own rules on our own Git servers :) >> > >
