Re: 2.0.2 and GConf

Derek Atkins wrote: Quoting Mark Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Umm, which SVN branch? There's no reference to g-wrap.m4 in trunk. > Indeed, the ONLY reference I see is in a ChangeLog entry: > > # find . -type f | xargs grep g-wrap.m4 > ./ChangeLog~: * macros/g-wrap.m4: fix the help text spac

Re: 2.0.2 and GConf

Andreas Köhler wrote: >Hi, > >Am Mittwoch, den 06.12.2006, 08:21 -0700 schrieb Mark Johnson: > > >>Quite right. I tried SVN15135 and the error was gone. Thanks, Andreas. >> >> > >Great! One minor note: I did not say that you should compile trunk at >r15135, because that is only one possibl

Re: 2.0.2 and GConf

Hi, Am Mittwoch, den 06.12.2006, 08:21 -0700 schrieb Mark Johnson: > >>Since gnucash 2.0.3 is coming out soon, I will be happy to download it > >>and try again. > >The current thread does not sound as if you either waited for 2.0.3 or > >tried http://svn.gnucash.org/trac/changeset/15135 :) > > >

Re: 2.0.2 and GConf

Quoting Mark Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Quite right. I tried SVN15135 and the error was gone. Thanks, Andreas. > > I suppose I should have tried the SVN version. One can sometimes be > pleasantly surprised to find the bug already fixed, as in this case. > > It's good though that not everyon

Re: 2.0.2 and GConf

Andreas Köhler wrote: >Hi, > > > >>>I could imagine that this has been fixed by r15135. Did you use more >>>than one main window and close some of them? >>> >>> >>> >>I had only one instance of gnucash running. Opening and closing a >>single register is my test sequence. It is on the cl

Re: 2.0.2 and GConf

Hi, > >I could imagine that this has been fixed by r15135. Did you use more > >than one main window and close some of them? > > > I had only one instance of gnucash running. Opening and closing a > single register is my test sequence. It is on the close of the register > window that I get the

Re: 2.0.2 and GConf

Mark Johnson wrote: > Mark Johnson wrote: > >> Derek Atkins wrote: >> >> >> >>> Mark Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> >>> >>> >>> Mark Johnson wrote: > This does not look like the sort of thing that occurs when debugging > optimized code, but I am going to try a

Re: 2.0.2 and GConf

Mark Johnson wrote: >Derek Atkins wrote: > > > >>Mark Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> >> >> >> >>>Mark Johnson wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> This does not look like the sort of thing that occurs when debugging optimized code, but I am going to try a build without opt

Re: 2.0.2 and GConf

Derek Atkins wrote: >Mark Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >>Mark Johnson wrote: >> >> >> >>>This does not look like the sort of thing that occurs when debugging >>>optimized code, but I am going to try a build without optimization >>>anyway. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>Obviously, t

Re: 2.0.2 and GConf

Mark Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Mark Johnson wrote: > >> This does not look like the sort of thing that occurs when debugging >> optimized code, but I am going to try a build without optimization >> anyway. >> >> >> > Obviously, the optimization was interfering with debugging. Here is

Re: 2.0.2 and GConf

Mark Johnson wrote: >This does not look like the sort of thing that occurs when debugging >optimized code, but I am going to try a build without optimization anyway. > > > Obviously, the optimization was interfering with debugging. Here is the gnucash terminal output: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ gnu

Re: 2.0.2 and GConf

Andreas Köhler wrote: >Hi, > >Am Dienstag, den 28.11.2006, 20:50 -0700 schrieb Mark Johnson: > > >>In trying gnucash 2.0.2, I noticed that whenever I close a register, I >>get the following two errors: >>[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ gnucash >> >>(gnucash:27727): GConf-CRITICAL **: file gconf-listeners.

Re: 2.0.2 and GConf

Hi, Am Dienstag, den 28.11.2006, 20:50 -0700 schrieb Mark Johnson: > In trying gnucash 2.0.2, I noticed that whenever I close a register, I > get the following two errors: > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ gnucash > > (gnucash:27727): GConf-CRITICAL **: file gconf-listeners.c: line 444 > (ltable_remove):

Re: 2.0.2 and GConf

David Hampton wrote: >On Wed, 2006-11-29 at 14:23 -0700, Mark Johnson wrote: > > >>... >> >>#6 0xb7529807 in gnc_gconf_remove_notification (object=0x814d940, >>section=0x0, whoami=0x809aeb0 "\030Ý\t\b\017") >>at gnc-gconf-utils.c:867 >>#7 0xb7e3410b in gnc_main_window_destroy (object=0x8

Re: 2.0.2 and GConf

On Wed, 2006-11-29 at 14:23 -0700, Mark Johnson wrote: > I ran gnucash --g-fatal-warnings, found the process, attached gdb. > > Here is the backtrace, along with the value of the parameters from frame 6: > (gdb) cont > Continuing. > > Program received signal SIGABRT, Aborted. > [Switching to Thr

Re: 2.0.2 and GConf

I ran gnucash --g-fatal-warnings, found the process, attached gdb. Here is the backtrace, along with the value of the parameters from frame 6: (gdb) cont Continuing. Program received signal SIGABRT, Aborted. [Switching to Thread -1229989664 (LWP 28567)] 0xb6b5a027 in raise () from /lib/tls/libc.s

Re: 2.0.2 and GConf

Can you run gnucash under gdb with --g-fatal-warnings and find a stack trace for where the gconf message comes from in the gnucash code? -derek Mark Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > In trying gnucash 2.0.2, I noticed that whenever I close a register, I > get the following two errors: > [EM

2.0.2 and GConf

In trying gnucash 2.0.2, I noticed that whenever I close a register, I get the following two errors: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ gnucash (gnucash:27727): GConf-CRITICAL **: file gconf-listeners.c: line 444 (ltable_remove): assertion `node != NULL' failed (gnucash:27727): GConf-CRITICAL **: file gconf-