Windows XP, rev 10208.
Make error line 300: problem compiling: src/ui/dialog/glyphs.cpp: In constructor 'Inkscape::UI::Dialog::GlyphsPanel::GlyphsPanel(const gchar*)': src/ui/dialog/glyphs.cpp:458: error: 'class Gtk::Button' has no member named 'set_can_default'
Make error line 300: problem compiling: In file included from src/color-profile.h:12, from src/widgets/sp-color-icc-selector.h:13, from src/widgets/sp-color-wheel-selector.cpp:13: c:\devlibs/include/lcms.h: In function 'void* _cmsMalloc(size_t)': c:\devlibs/include/lcms.h:1410: warning: comparison of unsigned expression < 0 is always false src/widgets/sp-color-wheel-selector.cpp: In function 'void handleWheelStyleSet(GtkHSV*, GtkStyle*, void*)': src/widgets/sp-color-wheel-selector.cpp:141: error: 'gtk_widget_get_allocation' was not declared in this scope
On 18/5/11 14:38, LucaDC wrote:
Windows XP, rev 10208.
Make error line 300: problem compiling: src/ui/dialog/glyphs.cpp: In constructor 'Inkscape::UI::Dialog::GlyphsPanel::GlyphsPanel(const gchar*)': src/ui/dialog/glyphs.cpp:458: error: 'class Gtk::Button' has no member named 'set_can_default'
Make error line 300: problem compiling: In file included from src/color-profile.h:12, from src/widgets/sp-color-icc-selector.h:13, from src/widgets/sp-color-wheel-selector.cpp:13: c:\devlibs/include/lcms.h: In function 'void* _cmsMalloc(size_t)': c:\devlibs/include/lcms.h:1410: warning: comparison of unsigned expression < 0 is always false src/widgets/sp-color-wheel-selector.cpp: In function 'void handleWheelStyleSet(GtkHSV*, GtkStyle*, void*)': src/widgets/sp-color-wheel-selector.cpp:141: error: 'gtk_widget_get_allocation' was not declared in this scope
from #inkscape (I was away at the time):
|07:17| < JonCruz> Hi. Is it ok with everyone if I randomly change some dependencies in our configure? |07:18| < sanguivor> Randomly? |07:19| < JonCruz> Ahh... thought that might spur some response |07:23| < JonCruz> Adding a few explicit ones that were missing, and bumping GTK+ to require 2.20
|08:46| < JonCruz> There you go |08:48| < JonCruz> http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~inkscape.dev/inkscape/trunk/revision/10208 |08:49| < JonCruz> check if the building works
|09:00| < JonCruz> did I breakded it?
GTK+ >= 20.2 as requirement breaks the Windows port: the devlibs still use GTK+ 2.16.6 (and gtkmm 2.16.0), see http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~inkscape.dev/inkscape-devlibs/trunk/view/head:/readme.txt
Same build failure occurred when the new color wheel selector code was originally committed (r9941): https://bugs.launchpad.net/inkscape/+bug/170046/comments/14 https://bugs.launchpad.net/inkscape/+bug/170046
~suv
On May 18, 2011, at 6:42 AM, ~suv wrote:
|07:17| < JonCruz> Hi. Is it ok with everyone if I randomly change some dependencies in our configure? |07:18| < sanguivor> Randomly? |07:19| < JonCruz> Ahh... thought that might spur some response |07:23| < JonCruz> Adding a few explicit ones that were missing, and bumping GTK+ to require 2.20
|08:46| < JonCruz> There you go |08:48| < JonCruz> http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~inkscape.dev/inkscape/trunk/revision/10208 |08:49| < JonCruz> check if the building works
|09:00| < JonCruz> did I breakded it?
GTK+ >= 20.2 as requirement breaks the Windows port:
Quite interesting, as I've been pushed from that side heavily to update.
the devlibs still use GTK+ 2.16.6 (and gtkmm 2.16.0), see http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~inkscape.dev/inkscape-devlibs/trunk/view/head:/readme.txt
Devlibs obviously need to be updated, but the good thing about source control is that it is easy to back out individual changes. Which is also why this was done as a single change.
But... 2.16 is *quite* outdated by now. Currently supported Linux distros are up to 2.24 by now.
On May 18, 2011, at 8:43 PM, Jon Cruz wrote:
GTK+ >= 20.2 as requirement breaks the Windows port:
Quite interesting, as I've been pushed from that side heavily to update.
the devlibs still use GTK+ 2.16.6 (and gtkmm 2.16.0), see http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~inkscape.dev/inkscape-devlibs/trunk/view/head:/readme.txt
Devlibs obviously need to be updated, but the good thing about source control is that it is easy to back out individual changes. Which is also why this was done as a single change.
BTW, the bzr concept here is "reverse cherrypicking". In case anyone wants to look into doing that for whichever changes. (this specific one is completed, though)
participants (3)
-
Jon Cruz -
LucaDC -
~suv