Re: Continued .. Moving up the chain: Breaking gnome 2.0 alpha builds

[jacob berkman <jacob ximian com>]

On Fri, 2002-01-18 at 00:09, Owen Taylor wrote:
> 
> Gregory Leblanc <gleblanc linuxweasel com> writes:
> 
> > On Thu, 2002-01-17 at 15:01, R.I.P. Deaddog wrote:
> > > On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Chris Chabot wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Also, gtk+ and other packages fail when the redhat's default gtk-doc is 
> > > > installed. Since upgrading it and all the tools is not a simple job, the 
> > > > 'easy' solution seems to be `rpm -e gtk-doc`
> > > 
> > > So, is it warranted to have a new release of gtk-doc within a few
> > > days?
> > 
> > Only if someone can figure out why it works for some packages, but not
> > for others.  I suspect that it's some difference in the makefiles, but
> > haven't had time to investigate further.  I'm not sure it's a gtk-doc
> > problem.
> 
> There is generally no reason to have gtk-doc when building 
> from tarballs except that the packages default to using it when
> it is found.
> 
> Making a new gtk-doc release is just a few minutes, so, it may be
> worth doing it just because it is easy, but people will be happier if
> they configure with --disable-gtk-doc in general.

i still didn't get that gtk_type_init() change - i guess i should do
that now.  (or should i wait?)

jacob
-- 
"In fact, can you imagine anything more terrifying than a zombie clown?"
	-- moby