On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 22:01:09 -0400,
Bill Pringlemeir wrote:
> On 9 Apr 2010, mitch...@etinternet.net wrote:
>
> > I did have 4 errors but all are corrected except this one:
>
> > ---snip-
>
> > Figuring out my version number...
> > ./Conf
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 12:22:37 +0200,
Christian Biere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I wonder, is there anyone using Gtk-Gnutella on Solaris? I'd like to
> add support for /dev/poll since Solaris does not provide kqueue or
> epoll. This seems very easy and I can probably write this "blindly"
>
the wrong pkg-config, and thus the wrong glibconfig.h
(there's one in /usr/lib/glib-2.0/include, and one in
/usr/lib/sparcv9/glib-2.0/include, of course). I fixed my PATH, rebuilt, and
the build was totally silent, no code changes required.
Sorry for the mix-up, I'll try to be a
On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 19:57:24 +0200
Christian Biere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Blue Meanie wrote:
> > I did get two new
> > warnings the first time through, in utf8.c:
> >
> > "utf8.c", line 962: warning: argument #3 is incompatible with prototype:
tbuf, size_t outbytes_left)
{
#if 0
/* This is the appropriate replacement unicode character 0xFFFD but
It's currently up and running, and I'll be watching to see if I have fewer
issues with hideously-long filenames and "unsanitized aliases" thi
ve been a few bug fixes that would justify a new release
> but there's no plan for a new release at the moment.
>
Ok. I just want to avoid the whole "running-an-ancient-version-and-getting-
nagged-about-it" problem. I guess I'll grab CVS updates a bit more often.
sg.c", line 196: warning: end-of-loop code not reached
make install, and the new binary is up and running fine.
Why can't everyone produce code this clean and this easy to build? :)
Nice job, developers! Any idea when the next release migh
as it comes up, and if there's anything specifically useful right
now, let me know, and I'll provide it right away.
Have there been enough changes to CVS since the 8th to justify a new
pull/build? Just curious.
The Blue Meanie
---
S
Sorry so quiet - was out of town for the weekend and sick yesterday & today.
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 15:46:54 +0100,
Christian Biere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> frame 5
> print buf
>
(gdb) frame 5
#5 0x0001001c7158 in gm_sanitize_filename ()
(gdb) print buf
$1 = 0
Unfortunately, that looks like
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 20:31:28 +0100
Christian Biere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Blue Meanie wrote:
> > (still had to remove the blank lines from the Makefiles, but no biggie).
>
> Those should be removed now but those files are generated so the generator
>
'll look into it myself later tonight and see if
anything jumps out at me. If you need anything else, let me know, I'll be
happy to provide it.
Cheers,
The Blue M
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 23:27:39 +0100,
Christian Biere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Blue Meanie wrote:
> > Running my new build through its paces, and I've discovered I can
> > consistently induce a segfault by picking the "Configure Columns" option
> > f
Running my new build through its paces, and I've discovered I can
consistently induce a segfault by picking the "Configure Columns" option
from any of the screens that offer it. The backtraces are as remarkably
consistent as the crash. Here's one to peruse:
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segme
ROR: Cannot open file -V.
2
Whatever this gmsgfmt is, it looks *way* outdated. Unfortunately, it's just a
regular old ELF binary, so I'm limited in the kind of info I can get
from/about it.
Cheers,
The Blue Meanie
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
--
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 01:09:10 +0100
Christian Biere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Blue Meanie wrote:
> > If someone *really* wants a transcript of the warnings
> > from a crazy-anal-retentive compiler, I can provide one. :)
>
> Sure, send me a copy, please.
>
sulted in running code on the first attempt. You just gotta
love that! I guess now I can just watch for the odd core dump that might pop
up from time to time.
Cheers,
The Blue Meanie
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
---
SF email is sponsored by - The IT
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 15:46:00 +0100,
Christian Biere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Blue Meanie wrote:
> > Sun's make just didn't want to deal
> > with the provided Makefiles.
>
> Maybe you could show us the first error messages from make. The Makefiles
>
t *caused* any problems with
these changes bigger than the ones I eliminated. And if any of these changes
do need to be officially classified as bugfixes, I'd be happy to write them up
and submit them to the bugtracker.
I can't say it enough: Thanks to everyone that's worked on GTKG
18 matches
Mail list logo
