gda-dev; new libgda version
esodan at gmail.com
Thu Dec 28 13:30:33 EST 2006
2006/12/28, Derek Atkins <warlord at mit.edu>:
> Mark Johnson <mrj001 at shaw.ca> writes:
> > A new version of libgda has been released. It is 2.99.2. They have
> > bumped the ABI version to 3.0. Consequently, libgda-2.0.pc is now
> > libgda-3.0.pc. Therefore, after upgrading to libgda 2.99.2, the build
> > in gda-dev branch fails.
> Was there even ever a libgda-2.0 stable release??
No, becouse a library name conflicts with the actual 1.2 series.
> > Further feedback on gda-dev:
> > configure did not fail when libgda-2.0.pc was not present. The
> > configure.in should be updated to have an option to enable/disable this
> > backend (like the --enable-sql option for postgresql). When the libgda
> > is not present and the option is enabled, the configure should fail
> > rather than the build.
> I guess it depends if GDA is going to be optional or not. We could
> do something like what libofx does in terms of AC_MSG_WARN vs
Or compile conditionals like in GDA, when it doesn't find a .pc file
for a specific provider it ignores it and just compile the existing
> > I've attached a trivial (stop-gap) patch to illustrate what I am
> > currently testing (i.e. simply to see if gnucash gda-dev builds with
> > libgda-3.0). This is not what I am suggesting as the mod to
> > configure.in. I'll work on that later.
> > So far gnucash gda-dev is still building, which is a good sign, but it
> > will be morning before I know if the build succeeded.
> If it works with either, do we want to allow either? Perhaps test for
> -3.0 and if it's not there fall back to -2.0? Definitely interested
> in hearing your results.
Must be compiled using 3.0 (or beta) becouse the 2.0 never will see the streets.
Trabajar, la mejor arma para tu superación
"de grano en grano, se hace la arena" (R) (entrámite, pero para los
More information about the gnucash-devel