Created attachment 160896 [details]
Added USE_GCC=4.8+ to the Makefile. Don't compile with clang.
Add patch to solve clang error.
Created attachment 160897 [details]
Comment on attachment 160897 [details]
>--- src/setting.c.orig 2015-09-10 14:46:36 UTC
>@@ -162,7 +162,7 @@ void save_setting()
> /* Deep copy settings. */
> Setting * copy_setting(Setting * setting)
>- g_return_if_fail (setting != NULL);
>+ g_return_val_if_fail (setting != NULL, FALSE);
> /* Allocate structure. */
> Setting * new_setting = g_slice_new0(Setting);
Created attachment 161561 [details]
Created attachment 161562 [details]
Created attachment 161563 [details]
thanks for your work! As it seems, you provide a patch for every file. This is very complicated to work with.
It seems you invoke a command like:
svn diff Makefile > patch-Makefile
Subversion is able to diff multiple files. You can just call:
svn diff > lxterminal.diff
This will diff all changed files in the active directory and wrote the changes into "lxterminal.diff".
This will save much time for the committers and makes live also for you easier.
Created attachment 161566 [details]
lxterminal.diff does not include a worthy difference of pkg-plist. Don't know how get svn diff to work, had any troubles with it (Had yesterday a discussion in an other PR).
Created attachment 161567 [details]
Seems I got it. I hope it is now the right diff file.
> and makes live also for you easier.
No... it makes it harder. Cause svn diff never delivers right diff. I had to edit it.
In this case svn diff has no output. I had to do it with svn diff --patch-compatible --old . --new ../ |sudo tee -a lxterminal.diff and edit it.
(In reply to Walter Schwarzenfeld from comment #12)
> No... it makes it harder. Cause svn diff never delivers right diff.
> I had to edit it.
What makes you believe the diff is not correct? The normal "svn diff" create a fully compatible diff, which is used. This is done all day.
I believe there is a problem in your workflow or in configuration.
If you need help, just contact me. I will explain it to you.
Created attachment 161568 [details]
This should now the right file. With help from Thorsten very thanks to you.
Created attachment 162182 [details]
Created attachment 162183 [details]
Created attachment 162184 [details]
Is any still wrong with it or ?
@Walter as the issue is currently classified:
* Confirmation of QA (needs-qa)
* Pending maintainer-approval
(In reply to Kubilay Kocak from comment #21)
> * Pending maintainer-approval
In this point we have reached the maintainer-timeout some time ago. Implicit approval?
Yes I will look in to it latest tomorrow.
A commit references this bug:
Date: Tue Dec 15 14:44:38 UTC 2015
New revision: 403780
- Update to 0.2.0
- Switch to options helper
Submitted by: Walter Schwarzenfeld
Approved by: mat (mentor), mantainer timeout
Differential Revision: D4581