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 543291 - panel_gconf_get_client doubly defined - breaks Solaris build
panel_gconf_get_client doubly defined - breaks Solaris build
Status: RESOLVED NOTABUG
Product: gnome-panel
Classification: Other
Component: panel
2.23.x
Other Solaris
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: Panel Maintainers
Panel Maintainers
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2008-07-16 15:01 UTC by Damien Carbery
Modified: 2009-05-04 20:47 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: 2.23/2.24

Attachments
Remove duplicate definition of panel_gconf_get_client function (496 bytes, patch)
2008-07-16 15:04 UTC, Damien Carbery 		rejected Details | Review

Description Damien Carbery 2008-07-16 15:01:18 UTC 
When linking gnome-desktop-item-edit the build fails with the following error:

ld: fatal: symbol `panel_gconf_get_client' is multiply-defined:
      (file gnome-desktop-item-edit.o type=FUNC; file panel-gconf.o type=FUNC);
ld: fatal: File processing errors. No output written to .libs/gnome-desktop-item-edit

Attached patch removed definition of panel_gconf_get_client() from gnome-panel/gnome-desktop-item-edit.c.
Comment 1 Damien Carbery 2008-07-16 15:04:41 UTC 
Created attachment 114669 [details] [review]
Remove duplicate definition of panel_gconf_get_client function
Comment 2 Vincent Untz 2008-07-28 00:03:21 UTC 
I don't understand: we don't use panel-gconf.o for gnome-desktop-item-edit, so what is the other place where it's defined?
Comment 3 Tobias Mueller 2009-02-07 18:36:36 UTC 
Hi :) What do we do about this bug? It's been set to NEEDINFO for quite some time now.

Damien, would you mind to provide us your CFLAGS and LDFLAGS? Maybe there is some linking magic involved. I'm closing as INCOMPLETE for now, please reopen if you have any news or think that this isn't a smart move.

I am also rejecting the patch for now, as I can't see any use for it and to make it disappear in the patch report.
Comment 4 Brian Cameron 2009-05-04 20:47:27 UTC 
I did some research on this bug.  As you say, this patch is not needed with the upstream code.  On Solaris, we apply the patch in bug #394249 and this adds the 
following line to panel-lockdown.h.

#include "launcher.h"

So, a patch we are applying causes this bug.  So this bug should be closed.

I added this patch to bug #394249 highlighting that this patch is also needed for that code to work properly.