Date: 14 Jul 2003 20:19:43 -0400 From: Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus@marcuscom.com> To: Mikhail Teterin <mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com> Cc: FreeBSD GNOME Users <gnome@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: minor patch for gconf Message-ID: <1058228383.49088.2.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> In-Reply-To: <200307142005.39934@misha-mx.virtual-estates.net> References: <200307141816.25067@misha-mx.virtual-estates.net> <200307141922.58178@misha-mx.virtual-estates.net> <1058225812.299.100.camel@gyros> <200307142005.39934@misha-mx.virtual-estates.net>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Mon, 2003-07-14 at 20:05, Mikhail Teterin wrote: > => I don't really use gconf (xmleditor dragged it in through the > => gnomelibs), so I'm more interested in the "technicality", than in > => getting anything done :-) Why would it not work? Seems to: > > =Because you'd have to edit gconf's configure to known about db4. Take a > =lookg at patch-configure. > > I see. > > => I would think, it is imperative, that the bogus dependency is cut out > => from the popular port. Unless I misunderstand you, this is a bug in > => gconf, that the FreeBSD port of gconf better fixes, is not it? > > =It would be better to simply remove the db* dependency, and comment out > =the checking code in configure (or break it). GConf has never used the > =DB backend (only XML). > > This is exactly, what I was saying. Should I file a PR or will you, guys > just do it? Yours, If you want to do the patch, cool. Else, I was just thinking of making the check always evaluate to false in configure. Joe > > -mi > -- PGP Key : http://www.marcuscom.com/pgp.asc [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQA/E0ifb2iPiv4Uz4cRAj+VAJ0Y9ATjZtjqXNXis6hTY7DJvaM5KgCgmBs4 2SrsD2sf/YB9ll0xNVIMyC4= =B6mq -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1058228383.49088.2.camel>