GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 582506
Use GtkBuilder instead of libglade
Last modified: 2009-11-09 21:35:31 UTC
According to http://www.gnome.org/~fpeters/299.html this module depends on libglade. In GNOME 2.27, libglade has been deprecated in favor of GtkBuilder. See http://library.gnome.org/devel/gtk/stable/gtk-migrating-GtkBuilder.html for migration instructions. Also see http://live.gnome.org/GnomeGoals/RemoveLibGladeUseGtkBuilder
What's the time frame for when libglade will be removed?
GNOME3 (End of March 2010) is the deadline to have it completely removed. But this should be a small task compared to anything else.
Created attachment 138861 [details] [review] first pass I *think* I've gotten it all. It all *seems* to work. Put another way, it *really* needs review. ;-) Thanks!
(In reply to comment #3) > Created an attachment (id=138861) [edit] > first pass > > I *think* I've gotten it all. It all *seems* to work. Put another way, it > *really* needs review. ;-) Thanks! It looks good to me. In addition, it is me or does it seem as though the preferences dialog comes up quicker? In any case, I say commit and send out a call for others to test.
Thanks Will. Patch committed to master. List warned. :-) I'm going to close this as FIXED because this bug is being used to track the progress of libglade removal by the GNOME community. If there are any regressions that resulted from this change, let's open new bugs rather than re-open this one because we are now and forever glade-free. :-)
Created attachment 139045 [details] [review] remove check for glade in configure.in Will, in trying to figure out what might be cause the translation issues (no luck yet), I realized that we are still checking for glade in configure.in. My bad.
(In reply to comment #6) > Will, in trying to figure out what might be cause the translation issues Any bug report or more info about that?
(In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #6) > > Will, in trying to figure out what might be cause the translation issues > > Any bug report or more info about that? > See bug 589362 comment #20 and #21 for what Will found. Seems we're not the only ones.