Problem with configure.in, AM_PATH_GWRAP and g-wrap 1.9

[Neil Williams]

On Monday 14 November 2005 9:41 pm, David Hampton wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-11-14 at 21:07 +0000, Neil Williams wrote:
> > They are
> > transitional and we NEED to change our build so that it does NOT need
> > either of these files.

Umm, I got that wrong.

> I've read the bug report again, and I do not see where is it stated that
> these files are transitional.

"I will upload a fixed
package soonish, so GnuCash can transition to G-Wrap 1.9."

Memory played a trick on me, sorry. I just checked my own email archive and I 
did ask Andreas these questions. However, the reply didn't go to the bug 
report (because the bug was closed by that time). For some reason, I then 
jumped to the wrong conclusion tonight.

I wrote to Andreas:
> > Should g-wrap-wct.h have been removed? Will g-wrap-wct.h be removed at a 
> > future release?  
> >
> No, and no.
> > Is it deprecated? 
> It is deprecated for new code, but retained for compatibility.
> > GnuCash currently refers to it in lots of 
> > places, is there a simple substitute that we can employ as a #define or 
> > similar? 
> No, just go on using it.

I got it backwards - I read "can transition" as "should/must transition". 

> I'm in the camp that could care less about Debian, but I do want to dtrt
> with respect to using g-wrap.

Sorry, David. I see where you're going with this now. 

It would seem that the build is in limbo until upstream at g-wrap release a 
version including the patch referred to in the Debian upload log.

So it's fixed in Debian but not upstream, leaving non-Debian builds in need of 
a quick hack.

> I've read the documentation at 
> http://www.nongnu.org/g-wrap/manual/index.html and it appears
> incomplete.  The page on defining new wrapped types has numerous places
> where function names appear by there is no description of where these
> functions come from, whether we have to write them or they are
> auto-generated, etc.

Yuk. This isn't making me any more likely to suddenly start developing g-wrap 
code!

:-)

If Andreas' desire for gnucash to move fully to 1.9 isn't matched by upstream 
creating documentation that enables such changes, it's hard to see what would 
be the right thing to do.

-- 

Neil Williams
=============
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.gnucash.org/pipermail/gnucash-devel/attachments/20051114/c44ebe33/attachment.bin