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

Previous Next

Full log

Message #42 received at 74606 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Manuel Giraud <manuel <at> ledu-giraud.fr>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
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 17:03:34 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:

>> 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.

Here it is.

[0001-Fix-the-version-of-librsvg-API-change.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[Message part 3 (text/plain, inline)]

-- 
Manuel Giraud

Previous Next

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