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 361993 - intltools version requirement too recent
intltools version requirement too recent
Status: RESOLVED NOTABUG
Product: gthumb
Classification: Other
Component: general
2.9.x
Other Linux
: Normal enhancement
: ---
Assigned To: Paolo Bacchilega
Paolo Bacchilega
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2006-10-13 18:52 UTC by Michael Chudobiak
Modified: 2006-10-14 18:02 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---



Description Michael Chudobiak 2006-10-13 18:52:48 UTC
On Fedora Core 5, as a result of bug 361770:

checking for intltool >= 0.35.0... 0.34.2 found
configure: error: Your intltool is too old.  You need intltool 0.35.0 or later.
make: *** No targets specified and no makefile found.  Stop.

This will break a lot of installations if it doesn't build on something as recent as FC5.

- Mike
Comment 1 Michael Chudobiak 2006-10-13 19:01:04 UTC
See http://live.gnome.org/GnomeGoals/PoLinguas.

In particular, the rhythmbox note says "BLOCKED: Won't be committed until intltool 0.35 is available in more distros, as it prevent many from building cvs."

- Mike
Comment 2 Michael Chudobiak 2006-10-13 19:33:53 UTC
I've also requested that Fedora get a more recent intltool package:

http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210689

- Mike
Comment 3 André Klapper 2006-10-14 00:56:21 UTC
well, this *might* break a lot of installations, but that's not GNOME's problem. complain to those installations instead.
new versions have new dependencies. either the distros fix them, or the user has to bare with also resolving the dependencies when he himself wants to compile and install a shiny new blingbling version.

i'm using
http://fedora.osmirror.nl/core/development/i386/os/Fedora/RPMS/intltool-0.35.0-1.i386.rpm
to workaround this.
i don't consider this as a bug at all, to me this is just named "progress".

NEEDINFO, feel free to reopen when answering.
Comment 4 Michael Chudobiak 2006-10-14 12:17:33 UTC
OK, point taken.

Can someone give the redhat packagers a poke?

- Mike
Comment 5 André Klapper 2006-10-14 18:02:54 UTC
hmm, https://bugzilla.redhat.com would be the best place, i guess.