After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 348633 - Help killl libegg :-)
Help killl libegg :-)
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: metacity
Classification: Other
Component: general
trunk
Other Linux
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: Metacity maintainers list
Metacity maintainers list
Depends on:
Blocks: 349256
 
 
Reported: 2006-07-25 12:48 UTC by Vincent Untz
Modified: 2006-07-30 12:40 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---


Attachments
patch (7.38 KB, patch)
2006-07-25 12:49 UTC, Vincent Untz
committed Details | Review

Description Vincent Untz 2006-07-25 12:48:40 UTC
eggaccelerators is not needed anymore with GTK+ 2.10. See bug #85780.

Here's a patch to help kill libegg proliferation. The egg files should also be removed. And I guess you'd also need to check for GTK+ 2.10 in configure.in...

A quick test makes me think it works okay. You should verify, though.
Comment 1 Vincent Untz 2006-07-25 12:49:01 UTC
Created attachment 69572 [details] [review]
patch
Comment 2 Havoc Pennington 2006-07-25 14:53:54 UTC
someone should check on gconf key forward and backward compat (i.e. old settings should work with new metacity, new settings should work with old metacity)
Comment 3 Thomas Thurman 2006-07-26 00:39:03 UTC
I've tested this and it works fine.

The differences between the parts of the libraries we use are:

1. egg_accelerator_parse_virtual, gtk_accelerator_parse

These use almost identical code. The only difference is that EAPV returns a gboolean whereas GAP returns void; the patch accounts for this difference correctly.

2. egg_virtual_accelerator_name, gtk_accelerator_name

Identical.

3. The constants.

Some differ, e.g. EGG_VIRTUAL_HYPER_MASK is 2**26 instead of 2**27. This is not a problem since they're being used symbolically.

Therefore the patch should be back and forward compatible.
Comment 4 Havoc Pennington 2006-07-26 01:10:28 UTC
sounds good - libegg_users -= 1
Comment 5 Thomas Thurman 2006-07-26 02:13:01 UTC
I have committed this. Actually, now I realise I should have asked whether vuntz was supposed to commit it, or whether I should have asked whether he wanted to. Sorry.
Comment 6 Vincent Untz 2006-07-26 06:57:35 UTC
Thomas: don't worry about that :-) And thanks for the reactiveness. This rocks!

Let's close the bug since we don't need it anymore.