Created attachment 127411 [details] [review]
sexy-entry

This patch is for gtk+ 2.15.0 not sure if the func names changed in 2.15.1. BTW after applying the patch you have to remove the sexy-icon-entry.[ch]

Thanks nacho looks good from a quick look... maybe for 2.24 we should use some #ifdefs since it seems a bit silly to require the latest gtk just for this.

What do you think?

You're right, I'll do it now.

Created attachment 127417 [details] [review]
sexy-entry v2

This check for gtk+ 2.15.0 in every places. Not sure if you want to check it too in configure.ac but I added it, it can be removed in a future or if you prefer I can do it building sexy-icon-entry.[ch] even if it is not neccessary.

Created attachment 127418 [details] [review]
sexy-entry v3

Sorry, in the previous I forgot the icon creation. Now should be ok.

Created attachment 127443 [details] [review]
sexy-entry v4

Fixed detection.

Created attachment 127529 [details] [review]
sexy-entry v5

This one is more clear but it duplicates some code.

Created attachment 127531 [details] [review]
sexy-entry v5.2

Same as the previous one with a little fix.

The condition in configure.ac doesn't seem to work. If I change it on the other hand to something like this:

----
dnl FIXME: Remove this when removing sexy-icon-entry
if $PKG_CONFIG --atleast-version 2.15.0 gtk+-2.0; then
        gtkatleast=
else
        gtkatleast=no
fi

AM_CONDITIONAL(BUILD_SEXY, test "$gtkatleast" = "no")
---

It does work (e.g. compiles fine on my non gtk 2.14.x machine)

Created attachment 127541 [details] [review]
sexy-entry v6

This uses the fix from jesse

2009-01-30  Ignacio Casal Quinteiro  <nacho.resa@gmail.com>

        * gedit/gedit-view.c:
        * gedit/Makefile.am:
        * configure.ac:
        Don't use sexy-icon-entry when gtk+ >= 2.15.0. (Fixes bug #569485)