gda-dev; new libgda version
Daniel Espinosa
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
> AC_MSG_ERROR
>
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
one.
> > 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
cuates: LIBRE)
More information about the gnucash-devel
mailing list