350095 – gnome-base/gnome-session-2.32.1 needs gdk_visual_get_depth

Bug 350095 - gnome-base/gnome-session-2.32.1 needs gdk_visual_get_depth

Summary: gnome-base/gnome-session-2.32.1 needs gdk_visual_get_depth

Status:	RESOLVED FIXED

Alias:	None

Product:	Gentoo Linux
Classification:	Unclassified
Component:	New packages (show other bugs)
Hardware:	All Linux

Importance:	High trivial (vote)
Assignee:	Gentoo Linux Gnome Desktop Team

URL:	https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.c...
Whiteboard:
Keywords:

Depends on:
Blocks:	gnome2.32
	Show dependency tree

Reported:	2010-12-29 22:41 UTC by Joe Sapp (RETIRED)
Modified:	2011-01-27 09:20 UTC (History)
CC List:	0 users

See Also:
Package list:
Runtime testing required:	---

Attachments
build log for gnome-session-2.32.1 against gtk+-2.20.1-r1 (build.log,16.96 KB, text/plain) 2011-01-03 01:55 UTC, Joe Sapp (RETIRED)	Details
View All Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Description Joe Sapp (RETIRED) gentoo-dev

2010-12-29 22:41:44 UTC

Compile fails (with x11-libs/gtk+-2.20.1-r1) with the lack of symbol gdk_visual_get_depth.  I upgraded to x11-libs/gtk+-2.22.1 and the compile succeeded.

Comment 1 Pacho Ramos gentoo-dev

2011-01-01 18:36:34 UTC

configure.in only checks for gtk+-2.14, could you please attach full build.log with the failure to let upstream know the problem? Thanks

Comment 2 Joe Sapp (RETIRED) gentoo-dev

2011-01-03 01:55:06 UTC

Created attachment 258682 [details]
build log for gnome-session-2.32.1 against gtk+-2.20.1-r1

Comment 3 Pacho Ramos gentoo-dev

2011-01-03 11:40:14 UTC

+  03 Jan 2011; Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> gnome-session-2.32.1.ebuild:
+  gtk+-2.22 is required because of lack of symbol gdk_visual_get_depth in older
+  versions (bug #350095 by Joe Sapp).
+

Comment 4 Mart Raudsepp gentoo-dev

2011-01-27 07:19:27 UTC

I wonder if we should care about this for upstream gnome-2-32 branch too

Comment 5 Pacho Ramos gentoo-dev

2011-01-27 09:20:32 UTC

(In reply to comment #4)
> I wonder if we should care about this for upstream gnome-2-32 branch too
> 

I commented in upstream bug (that is still opened) about this still not fixed in 2.32 branch