On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 04:05:13PM +0100, Joachim Nilsson wrote: > On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 11:20:42AM +0900, Horms wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 12:27:35PM +0100, Joachim Nilsson wrote: > > > Mon 2005-01-31 at 13:30 +0300 Simon Horman wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 04:41:31PM +0100, Joachim Nilsson wrote: > > > > > [1] - http://lists.debian.org/debian-kernel/2005/01/msg00171.html > > > > Is gconfig even maintained upstream? > > > Dunno, but 2.6.10-ac5 has the following changelog entry that might > > > be worth taking a closer look at: > > > * Make gconfig work with current gtk 2.4 (J Magallon) > > That is interesting indeed. I have attached the associated patch. > > Could you take a moment to see if it resolves the problem > > as well as your patch does. > > The bk patch does solve the errors. It does this mainly by removing the > use of custom icons for single|split|full view and replacing them with > (imo badly chosen) stock icons. I.e., the patch focuses on solving the > runtime errors, the annoying warnings remain. > > My patch otoh keep the original icons, the same as are used in the > xconfig/kconfig toolbar. I do this with replace_button_icon(), which is > a new function that replace missing icons from the .glade file. On top > of that I also sneeked in a segfault fix on lines @@ -851,9 +851,12 @@ > to grey out the back button in single mode. It is necessary to handle > if the user changes from a deeply nested place in split mode to single > mode and then presses back. > > I know I'm not exactly impartial here, but the bk patch is ugly. Maybe > we should let our patch flow upstream?
I think that would be an excellent idea. Perhaps you could try making a patch relative to what is currently upstream and send that to lkml and CC whoever signed off on the last patch. -- Horms -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
