On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:33:18AM -0700, Saul Wold wrote: > On 09/30/2011 01:47 AM, Martin Jansa wrote: > > * otherwise build fails when glib is 2.30.0 or newer (and > > G_DISABLE_DEPRECATED is enabled - like in atk) > > > > Signed-off-by: Martin Jansa<martin.ja...@gmail.com> > > --- > > .../atk/atk-1.32.0/remove.G_CONST_RETURN.patch | 628 > > ++++++++++++++++++++ > > meta/recipes-support/atk/atk_1.32.0.bb | 5 +- > > 2 files changed, 632 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > create mode 100644 > > meta/recipes-support/atk/atk-1.32.0/remove.G_CONST_RETURN.patch > > > > diff --git > > a/meta/recipes-support/atk/atk-1.32.0/remove.G_CONST_RETURN.patch > > b/meta/recipes-support/atk/atk-1.32.0/remove.G_CONST_RETURN.patch > > new file mode 100644 > > index 0000000..0cdf041 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/meta/recipes-support/atk/atk-1.32.0/remove.G_CONST_RETURN.patch > > @@ -0,0 +1,628 @@ > > +Upstream-Status: Accepted > > + > > +Similar patch is already included in 2.0.1 and newer > > +http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/gnome/sources/atk/2.0/atk-2.0.1.news > > + > > No Signed-off-by: in the patch header. > > If the newer version of atk is available, why not update atk in oe-core > to that version and not add this patch? > > Is there a reason we can't update to 2.0.1 at this time?
I'm not atk expert so to minimize influence of such build fix I didn't want to upgrade to new major version. But if the 2.0 API is compatible feel free to update to 2.0.1. Btw: I've included this patch to "Glib related change" pull request later when I had more changes to send them as separate patches.. -- Martin 'JaMa' Jansa jabber: martin.ja...@gmail.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
