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 607191 - Do not install gtk-docs that claim lower-level functions
Do not install gtk-docs that claim lower-level functions
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: evolution-data-server
Classification: Platform
Component: general
unspecified
Other Mac OS
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: Evolution Shell Maintainers Team
Evolution QA team
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2010-01-16 23:38 UTC by Daniel Macks
Modified: 2010-01-18 14:49 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---



Description Daniel Macks 2010-01-16 23:38:05 UTC
e-d-s installs camel-i18n.h as a fully obsolete set of convenience macros. Those macros have the same names as generally available functions from other popular libraries. That's not a problem. But if the gtk-doc documentation for those macros is installed, gtk-doc then thinks that this is *the* place that the symbols/macros are defined. What should be a limited-use item becomes the global definition. When other packages build *their* gtk-doc, they default to linking (for example) "gettext" to the camel-i18n gtk-doc entry.

This is not just an end-user problem. The current stable distro of glib (2.22.4) comes with pregenerated documentation that was clearly built on a machine that had camel gtk-doc visible: so all glib gettext links point to camel gtk-doc files.

Is there an -overrides or other way to avoid making the camel-i18n documentation so public? Can the specific entries be left out, and instead just have a note "this is obsolete, nothing should be using it" (avoids breaking existing incoming links)? Has there been anything that uses that header at all in anyone's recent memory, or else could it just be scrapped entirely? Or just rewritten on top of glib/gi18n.h and glib/gi18n-lib.h rather that declaring *anything* itself?
Comment 1 Matthew Barnes 2010-01-17 03:16:32 UTC
That's due to be removed as soon as 2.31 (leading to 3.0) development begins.  For the interim, would it help to just remove it entirely from the documentation?
Comment 2 Daniel Macks 2010-01-17 17:23:00 UTC
Yes, I think that would completely solve this. It's purely a doc visiblity issue.
Comment 3 Matthew Barnes 2010-01-18 14:49:50 UTC
I've removed any mention of the deprecated i18n macros in:
http://git.gnome.org/browse/evolution-data-server/commit/?id=9adea375e6572a6c04014b4ff51ba1d61c70bdec

Let me know if there's still problems.