On Thu, 2011-09-15 at 09:50 -0400, Ryan Lortie wrote:
We're currently suffering because
gnome-common also ties maintainer mode to the enabling of deprecation
checks and we're not sure we want these to be enabled by default for
casual tarball downloaders.
[snip]
This is not a problem
hi Murray,
On Fri, 2011-09-16 at 10:05 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
No packager has mentioned any problem with gtkmm and friends.
This is not about reducing problems for packagers. It's about reducing
problems for those who try to build your module via jhbuild. If you
jhbuild a
On Fri, 2011-09-16 at 08:15 -0400, Ryan Lortie wrote:
hi Murray,
On Fri, 2011-09-16 at 10:05 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
No packager has mentioned any problem with gtkmm and friends.
This is not about reducing problems for packagers. It's about reducing
problems for those who try to
Milan Crha mc...@redhat.com a écrit:
On Wed, 2011-09-14 at 12:22 +0100, Ross Burton wrote:
--enable-maintainer-mode enable make rules and dependencies not useful
(and sometimes confusing) to the casual installer
[...]
the above help string might then just suggest
On Thu, 2011-09-15 at 10:52 +0200, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
the above help string might then just suggest that I would rather define
my own --enable-maintainer-mode when I want to cover more things under
it.
If you do so, please don't call it --enable-maintainer-mode. I agree
with Ross
hi,
On Wed, 2011-09-14 at 12:22 +0100, Ross Burton wrote:
Because maintainer mode existing is really annoying when you are a
packager, and tying arbitrary unrelated changes to an option that is
documented as only changing the make rules is just wrong.
--enable-maintainer-mode enable make
On Mon, 2011-09-12 at 08:23 +0200, Milan Crha wrote:
On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 13:09 +0100, Javier Jardón wrote:
So if Its not already fixed in your module, we are going to proced to
fix all the GNOME modules that appear
in orange and convert it to yellow, ie
AM_MAINTAINER_MODE -
On 14 September 2011 08:19, Milan Crha mc...@redhat.com wrote:
By the way, your change has a side-effect where DBus factories of
evolution-data-server (e-addressbook-factory and e-calendar-factory
processes) depend on gtk+ by default, because I did a change couple
weeks ago to do that *when
On Wed, 2011-09-14 at 10:56 +0100, Ross Burton wrote:
On 14 September 2011 08:19, Milan Crha mc...@redhat.com wrote:
By the way, your change has a side-effect where DBus factories of
evolution-data-server (e-addressbook-factory and e-calendar-factory
processes) depend on gtk+ by default,
On 14 September 2011 11:43, Milan Crha mc...@redhat.com wrote:
why is that? I can imagine couple useful things being tight to the
maintainer mode, also those aforementioned deprecated stuff being in use
only for maintainers, not for regular users, like is done here [1].
Other users in this
On 14 September 2011 11:43, Milan Crha mc...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, 2011-09-14 at 10:56 +0100, Ross Burton wrote:
maintainer mode shouldn't mean anything else apart from changing how
the makefiles generate, and certainly shouldn't change what code is
being compiled.
Hi,
why is
On Wed, 2011-09-14 at 12:22 +0100, Ross Burton wrote:
On 14 September 2011 11:43, Milan Crha mc...@redhat.com wrote:
why is that? I can imagine couple useful things being tight to the
maintainer mode, also those aforementioned deprecated stuff being in use
only for maintainers, not for
On Wed, 2011-09-14 at 12:53 +0100, Javier Jardón wrote:
...
if test x$enable_strict != xno; then
CPPFLAGS=$CPPFLAGS -DG_DISABLE_DEPRECATED -DGTK_DISABLE_DEPRECATED
-DGDK_DISABLE_DEPRECATED
fi
[1] https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=658608
Hi,
OK, that fixes one part of
2011/9/12 Murray Cumming murr...@murrayc.com:
On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 13:09 +0100, Javier Jardón wrote:
Hi all,
As you can read in the Ryan blog post [1], the use of the
AM_MAINTAINER_MODE macro is only correct when used in this way:
AM_MAINTAINER_MODE([enable])
As ryan said in the blog
On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 13:09 +0100, Javier Jardón wrote:
So if Its not already fixed in your module, we are going to proced to
fix all the GNOME modules that appear
in orange and convert it to yellow, ie
AM_MAINTAINER_MODE - AM_MAINTAINER_MODE([enable])
Hi,
you didn't give much time
On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 13:09 +0100, Javier Jardón wrote:
Hi all,
As you can read in the Ryan blog post [1], the use of the
AM_MAINTAINER_MODE macro is only correct when used in this way:
AM_MAINTAINER_MODE([enable])
As ryan said in the blog post, fredp made a report page for packages
Le vendredi 09 septembre 2011, à 13:09 +0100, Javier Jardón a écrit :
Hi all,
As you can read in the Ryan blog post [1], the use of the
AM_MAINTAINER_MODE macro is only correct when used in this way:
AM_MAINTAINER_MODE([enable])
As ryan said in the blog post, fredp made a report page
On 9 September 2011 13:24, Vincent Untz vu...@gnome.org wrote:
Le vendredi 09 septembre 2011, à 13:09 +0100, Javier Jardón a écrit :
Hi all,
As you can read in the Ryan blog post [1], the use of the
AM_MAINTAINER_MODE macro is only correct when used in this way:
AM_MAINTAINER_MODE([enable])
Le vendredi 09 septembre 2011, à 13:49 +0100, Javier Jardón a écrit :
On 9 September 2011 13:24, Vincent Untz vu...@gnome.org wrote:
Le vendredi 09 septembre 2011, à 13:09 +0100, Javier Jardón a écrit :
Hi all,
As you can read in the Ryan blog post [1], the use of the
AM_MAINTAINER_MODE
On 9 September 2011 14:16, Vincent Untz vu...@gnome.org wrote:
Le vendredi 09 septembre 2011, à 13:49 +0100, Javier Jardón a écrit :
Also, that bug is unrelated with the use of AM_MAINTAINER_MODE
Sorry, you're wrong :-)
well, partially ;)
gnome-session is orange in the report and doesn't
20 matches
Mail list logo
