hello, tying to compile latest svn on debian got me this. is this a change in inkscape that requires a recent version of gtkmm? mine is: 2.4.10-1
make[2]: Entering directory `/home/jiho/softwares/inkscape/src' if g++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I.. -I/usr/include/freetype2 -pthread -DORBIT2=1 -I/usr/include/gnome-vfs-2.0 -I/usr/lib/gnome-vfs-2.0/include -I/usr/include/bonobo-activation-2.0 -I/usr/include/libbonobo-2.0 -I/usr/include/gconf/2 -I/usr/include/glib-2.0 -I/usr/lib/glib-2.0/include -I/usr/include/orbit-2.0 -I/usr/include/freetype2 -I/usr/X11R6/include -DPOTRACE="potrace" -DXTHREADS -pthread -I/usr/include/gdkmm-2.4 -I/usr/lib/gdkmm-2.4/include -I/usr/include/glibmm-2.4 -I/usr/lib/glibmm-2.4/include -I/usr/include/pangomm-1.4 -I/usr/include/gtk-2.0 -I/usr/lib/gtk-2.0/include -I/usr/X11R6/include -I/usr/include/sigc++-2.0 -I/usr/lib/sigc++-2.0/include -I/usr/include/glib-2.0 -I/usr/lib/glib-2.0/include -I/usr/include/pango-1.0 -I/usr/include/freetype2 -I/usr/include/gtkmm-2.4 -I/usr/lib/gtkmm-2.4/include -I/usr/include/atkmm-1.6 -I/usr/include/atk-1.0 -I/usr/include/libxml2 -I../cxxtest -Wall -W -Wpointer-arith -Wcast-align -Wsign-compare -Woverloaded-virtual -Wswitch -Wno-unused-parameter -g -O2 -MT ui/dialog/extension-editor.o -MD -MP -MF "ui/dialog/.deps/extension-editor.Tpo" \ -c -o ui/dialog/extension-editor.o `test -f 'ui/dialog/extension-editor.cpp' || echo './'`ui/dialog/extension-editor.cpp; \ then mv -f "ui/dialog/.deps/extension-editor.Tpo" "ui/dialog/.deps/extension-editor.Po"; \ else rm -f "ui/dialog/.deps/extension-editor.Tpo"; exit 1; \ fi /usr/include/gtkmm-2.4/gtkmm/widget.h: In member function `void Inkscape::UI::Dialog::ExtensionEditor::on_pagelist_selection_changed()': /usr/include/gtkmm-2.4/gtkmm/widget.h:2440: error: `void Gtk::Widget::unparent()' is protected ui/dialog/extension-editor.cpp:163: error: within this context /usr/include/gtkmm-2.4/gtkmm/widget.h:2440: error: `void Gtk::Widget::unparent()' is protected ui/dialog/extension-editor.cpp:175: error: within this context /usr/include/gtkmm-2.4/gtkmm/widget.h:2440: error: `void Gtk::Widget::unparent()' is protected ui/dialog/extension-editor.cpp:187: error: within this context make[2]: *** [ui/dialog/extension-editor.o] Error 1 make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/jiho/softwares/inkscape/src' make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/jiho/softwares/inkscape' make: *** [all] Error 2
thank you in advance for any help. -- Jean-Olivier Irisson --- Windows, c'est un peu comme le beaujolais nouveau : a chaque nouvelle cuvee on sait que ce sera degueulasse, mais on en prend quand meme par masochisme. --- Personal address: Château St Martin, 66200 Elne, France Professional address: EPHE- UMR CNRS 8046, 52 av Paul Alduy, 66860 Perpignan Cedex, France
Mobile: 06 21 05 19 90 Web site: http://jo.irisson.free.fr/work/
On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 06:55:41PM +0200, jiho wrote:
hello, tying to compile latest svn on debian got me this. is this a change in inkscape that requires a recent version of gtkmm? mine is: 2.4.10-1 ... /usr/include/gtkmm-2.4/gtkmm/widget.h:2440: error: `void Gtk::Widget::unparent()' is protected
Based on a cursory search of the gtkmm changelog, it appears that unparent was made public on 2004-10-10. gtkmm 2.4.0 was released before that; 2.4.6 and later were released after then. Given that jiho says he has 2.4.10, I suppose we'll need to bump the dependency in configure.ac (and debian/control) to >= 2.6 -- or remove those unparent() calls from ui/dialog/extension-editor.cpp.
How do we feel about requiring gtkmm 2.6, which was released Mar 2005 ?
Ted, how easy is it to do without those unparent calls?
pjrm.
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006, Peter Moulder wrote:
How do we feel about requiring gtkmm 2.6, which was released Mar 2005 ?
Ted, how easy is it to do without those unparent calls?
It isn't difficult, they're just there as an optimization. Actually, I think it's a bug in GTKmm that I need them at all, but that's a diffirent discussion. They're not important enough to break compatibility with older versions of GTKmm for sure.
--Ted
ted@...11... wrote:
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006, Peter Moulder wrote:
How do we feel about requiring gtkmm 2.6, which was released Mar 2005 ?
Ted, how easy is it to do without those unparent calls?
It isn't difficult, they're just there as an optimization. Actually, I think it's a bug in GTKmm that I need them at all, but that's a diffirent discussion. They're not important enough to break compatibility with older versions of GTKmm for sure.
--Ted
Wouldn't it be just a shorthand form of something like get_parent().remove(this) or something?
bob
On Wed, 29 Mar 2006, Bob Jamison wrote:
ted@...11... wrote:
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006, Peter Moulder wrote:
How do we feel about requiring gtkmm 2.6, which was released Mar 2005 ?
Ted, how easy is it to do without those unparent calls?
It isn't difficult, they're just there as an optimization. Actually, I think it's a bug in GTKmm that I need them at all, but that's a diffirent discussion. They're not important enough to break compatibility with older versions of GTKmm for sure.
Wouldn't it be just a shorthand form of something like get_parent().remove(this) or something?
I think it's actually simpler than that, it is just setting the parent field to NULL. At the point I'm calling it the parent should have already been destroyed, and the only reason I have a copy of the object is that I incremented it's ref count. But, you'd think a dying parent would fix the parent field on it's children... But, it seemed like bad form to fix the "Parent not NULL error" by setting the parent to NULL :)
--Ted
participants (4)
-
unknown@example.com
-
Bob Jamison
-
jiho
-
Peter Moulder