X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com X-MailCleaner-SPF: none MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Message-id: <4F3B81EE.6020107@unige.ch> Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 10:59:10 +0100 From: Juergen Harms User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.26) Gecko/20120203 Mageia/3.1.18-1.mga1 (1) Thunderbird/3.1.18 To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: [geda-user] Legacy indirect includes of glib References: <4F3AD8BE DOT 9010306 AT unige DOT ch> <4F3B6EA6 DOT 1020301 AT x-eike DOT de> In-reply-to: <4F3B6EA6.1020301@x-eike.de> Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Well ... I just discovered that the who-is-who of maintainers in Mageia has some mixup - somebody else (whom I still have to find, but who knows more about codeing than I do) had already created patches for the problems with glib. I saw this quite late, because when the rpm package did not run, I tried first of all to get my bearings right and started to work with the (unpatched) tarball rather than digging into the rpm. But even with these patches (the rpm package builds without errors), gschem does not run - when gschem is launched by a user, it aborts with error messages saying that gschem compiles (why does it?) something, but fortunately cannot write into /usr/share/... The messages also suggest to set some AUTO_COMPILE variable for which I cannot find any documentation. Does that maybe ring a bell? Anyhow, the apparent inconsistency between tarball and rpm package that initially made me suspicious is now clarified. I will now try to get the maintainership cleared - maybe I can just go away and enjoy a couple of (less cold now) days of skiing and let the other guy grind away. One important question: when I checked last on the geda web-site, I saw that 1.7.xx was still noted as not stable. Do you have a recommendation on whether Mageia should be conservative and make 1.6.2 work in its rpm package, or whether 1.7.2 (2 ?) is sufficiently stable to go into production? Something to verify on your side: are the - evidently necessary, given the modified glib - patches already deployed in the code you are maintaining ( I did not yet look at the code in 1.7.2)? Juergen