[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in x11-libs/gtk+: gtk+-2.20.1-r1.ebuild ChangeLog

[Gilles Dartiguelongue]

Le samedi 03 juillet 2010 à 13:08 +0000, Fabian Groffen (grobian) a
écrit :
> grobian     10/07/03 13:08:01
>
>   Modified:             gtk+-2.20.1-r1.ebuild ChangeLog
>   Log:
>   Fix compilation on Darwin8
>   (Portage version: 2.2.01.15352-prefix/cvs/Darwin powerpc)
>
> Revision  Changes    Path
> 1.3                  x11-libs/gtk+/gtk+-2.20.1-r1.ebuild
>
> file : http://sources.gentoo.org/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/x11-libs/gtk+/gtk+-2.20.1-r1.ebuild?rev=1.3&view=markup
> plain: http://sources.gentoo.org/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/x11-libs/gtk+/gtk+-2.20.1-r1.ebuild?rev=1.3&content-type=text/plain
> diff : http://sources.gentoo.org/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/x11-libs/gtk+/gtk+-2.20.1-r1.ebuild?r1=1.2&r2=1.3
>
> Index: gtk+-2.20.1-r1.ebuild
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/x11-libs/gtk+/gtk+-2.20.1-r1.ebuild,v
> retrieving revision 1.2
> retrieving revision 1.3
> diff -u -r1.2 -r1.3
> --- gtk+-2.20.1-r1.ebuild	20 Jun 2010 11:15:18 -0000	1.2
> +++ gtk+-2.20.1-r1.ebuild	3 Jul 2010 13:08:01 -0000	1.3
> @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
>  # Copyright 1999-2010 Gentoo Foundation
>  # Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2
> -# $Header: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/x11-libs/gtk+/gtk+-2.20.1-r1.ebuild,v 1.2 2010/06/20 11:15:18 nirbheek Exp $
> +# $Header: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/x11-libs/gtk+/gtk+-2.20.1-r1.ebuild,v 1.3 2010/07/03 13:08:01 grobian Exp $
>
>  EAPI="3"
>
> @@ -79,8 +79,8 @@
>  	# Don't break inclusion of gtkclist.h, upstream bug 536767
>  	epatch "${FILESDIR}/${PN}-2.14.3-limit-gtksignal-includes.patch"
>
> -	# add correct framework linking options, for aqua
> -	epatch "${FILESDIR}/${PN}-2.18.5-macosx-aqua.patch"
> +	# Fix for missing NSUInteger on Darwin8 (10.4)
> +	[[ ${CHOST} == *-darwin8 ]] && epatch "${FILESDIR}"/${P}-darwin8.patch
>
can we know why the previous patch was removed, why is this patch
conditional at all and if upstream was made aware of this patch (with an
upstream bug reference if it exists) ?


-- 
Gilles Dartiguelongue <eva@g.o>
Gentoo