Re: gnome-common problem

On Mon, 2003-06-23 at 21:27, Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-04-10 at 03:43, James Henstridge wrote:
> > The old behaviour was obviously wrong.  It said that if you passed 
> > --enable-compile-warnings=something to configure, then 
> > enable_compile_warnings would be set to $default_compile_warnings.  If 
> > you didn't pass the option to configure, it would be set to yes.
> > 
> > After the change, the flag acts like it is documented to.  If you pass 
> > --enable-compile-warnings=something to configure, it will set 
> > enable_compile_warnings to "something".  If you don't pass the argument, 
> > it sets it to $default_compile_warnings.
> > 
> > I don't think Mark's patch should be reverted though (it corrects a 
> > bug).  So the question is whether the --enable-compile-warnings flag 
> > should be passed to configure by at all.  I would lean 
> > towards removing it from the list of arguments.
> > 
> > Does anyone have any objections?
> > 
> > James.
> Patch attached, can I commit ?

Yes, go ahead. We're not killing ourselves by removing it and can think
about if it's needed in a different form later on.

(btw, there is a gnome-common component in bugzilla now.)


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]