|Subject:||Re: [Gnash-dev] Utilities and BOOST|
|Date:||Mon, 27 Apr 2009 10:40:44 +0200|
|User-agent:||Thunderbird 126.96.36.199 (Windows/20090302)|
I'm sorry, |
Mine was only a proposal and i've posted that patch.
I don't know Gnash source code very well yet and so, yes that patch can be moved in a common file like libbase/utility.h.
Regard the Point 3, well i could agree with you but if a patch is only a couple of line i don't think can be a problem and can be useful for many systems and noty only for a single system
Regard the point 2 i was think that the patch was clear itself and my comment on the mail was clear. This patch is needed when exceptions are not enabled on BOOST. You can compile BOOST without enabling it and if you look at its include:
you will see that an user defined function is needed in the exe
But if you found another way to patch it without touching Gnash is better.
Benjamin Wolsey ha scritto:
The problems with the patch are: 1. it includes the same code in four different files, which makes an unnecessarily big mess and is more difficult to maintain. 2. it has no comment explaining what problem it fixes and on what systems. 3. I don't see why Gnash sources should include code to fix a problem in boost packaging on other systems. If an OS insists on a particular configuration of boost, it should perhaps have local patches to fix it. The first two problems are crucial and should have been fixed before someone committed the patch, but weren't. libbase/utility.h is generally where all the miscellaneous compatibility fixes go until a better home is found for them. I'd like to revert the boost part of the patch until a tidier fix is found. Committers, please be more critical of patches before applying them! -- The current release of Gnash is 0.8.5 http://www.gnu.org/software/gnash/ Benjamin Wolsey, Software Developer - http://benjaminwolsey.de
|[Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread]|