GNU bug report logs - #74606
31.0.50; Another rsvg API change

Previous Next

Full log

Message #39 received at 74606 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Manuel Giraud <manuel <at> ledu-giraud.fr>
Cc: 74606 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, osamarebach <at> gmail.com
Subject: Re: bug#74606: 31.0.50; Another rsvg API change
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2024 17:11:10 +0200

> From: Manuel Giraud <manuel <at> ledu-giraud.fr>
> Cc: osamarebach <at> gmail.com,  74606 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2024 16:02:40 +0100
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
> 
> >> From: Manuel Giraud <manuel <at> ledu-giraud.fr>
> >> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>,  74606-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> >> Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2024 15:14:54 +0100
> >> 
> >> > On this page, when you unfold the link "Tags containing commit", you can
> >> > see that 2.58.90 is the first one.  So maybe, I should use this version
> >> > instead.  WDYT?
> >> >
> >> > The "Deprecated: 2.58" from the header looks like a copy/paste
> >> > mistake.
> >> 
> >> Here is a patch to be applied on emacs-30.
> >
> > Thanks, but did you verify that 2.58.90 actually has this function?
> > Is the tarball of that version's sources available somewhere we could
> > check?
> 
> No I didn't.  I've only used the commit log.
> 
> > Alternatively, we could use 2.59, since 2.58.90 is a pretest, so I see
> > no catastrophe if someone sees warnings while using it.
> 
> I agree: no catastrophe and low probability too.  Do you want me to
> modify the patch to check for 2.59?

Yes, please.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.