Patrick patrick at setsuid.net
Sat Dec 14 15:57:50 EST 2013

John, devs,

If someone has time to review my very small patch for #336843 (attach
files/urls to transactions) in bugzilla, or fix differently, we've
still got a small bug with the new associate functionality I'd love to
see fixed before release.

The patch fixes a broken dialog and disables/greys out the execute
option if the link is unset. (As John requested in bugzilla.)


On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 12:39 PM, John Ralls <jralls at ceridwen.us> wrote:
> On Dec 14, 2013, at 8:44 AM, Geert Janssens <janssens-geert at telenet.be> wrote:
>> On Saturday 14 December 2013 12:08:17 Geert Janssens wrote:
>>> On Saturday 14 December 2013 10:30:14 Cristian Marchi wrote:
>>>> Ubuntu 13.04
>>>> SWIG Version 2.0.7
>>>> Compiled with g++ [x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu]
>>>> Configured options: +pcre
>>>> I think I need 2.0.10 right?
>>> That is: my patch applies only to code generated by 2.0.10 or more
>>> recent. Until now GnuCash only required swig 2.0.10 if compiled with
>>> guile 2.
>>> I didn't consider the option of building gnucash with guile 1.8 and an
>>> older version of swig. There is a tiny chance that this patch is not
>>> needed either for guile 1.8. So in that case I can simply skip the
>>> patch application when building with guile 1.8. If it is mandatory in
>>> both cases, I may have to create two patches, one that applies to old
>>> swig generated code and one that applies to new swig generated code.
>>> I'll check and report back.
>> It turns out the patch is only necessary for guile 2. I had already learned from the guile
>> developers that the string handling changed radically between guile 1.8 and 2.0. This was one
>> of the side effects.
>> I have committed r23559 to make sure the swig patch is only applied when building with guile
>> 2. In that situation we require swig 2.0.10 anyway.
>> Or more precisely we should require it. I have also committed r23560 to improve the swig
>> check to test for 2.0.10 when configure detects guile 2. So that should now be covered as well.
> Good, and just in time!
> Anyone else have any changes before I make the 2.9.A (think hexadecimally ;-) ) tarballs?
> Regards,
> John Ralls
> _______________________________________________
> gnucash-devel mailing list
> gnucash-devel at gnucash.org
> https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel

More information about the gnucash-devel mailing list