From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jan Nieuwenhuizen Subject: Re: [ANN] guile-gi v0.0.1 released Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2019 21:47:05 +0200 Message-ID: <87tvd5t9om.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20181115144125.GA23468@joshua.dnsalias.com> <874l59smoy.fsf@gnu.org> <20190603144648.GA7713@spikycactus.attlocal.net> <87blzehb93.fsf@gnu.org> <20190604144501.GA14845@spikycactus.attlocal.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-=-=" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20190604144501.GA14845@spikycactus.attlocal.net> (Mike Gran's message of "Tue, 4 Jun 2019 07:45:01 -0700") List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Mike Gran Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, guile-user@gnu.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Mike Gran writes: Hi! > Both guile-gnome and my hack have two parts > - an introspection layer > - a gobject-to-guile binding > > I had a chat with Wingo at the last FOSDEM, and he thinks the > gobject-to-guile binding could be reused, and that I could just swap > the gwrap GTK+2 introspection layer with a GObject introspection > layer. I began analyzing that path a few months before life > intervened. Okay, good. >> I'm quite new to all this, I cannot see the great difference in gtk+2 >> and gtk+3 here, even... >> >> >> Patches also on my `wip' branch: https://gitlab.com/janneke/guile-gi.git > > I incorporated these, and fixed the bug that caused your editor example > to fail. Thanks! Oh great, and that's fast. Thanks! You maybe even did a bit too well, the `bytes_new_null_size.scm' test now passes. I added that to XFAIL_TEST because it fails -- now make check fails because this test is fixed. The attach patch removes that workaround again. If you apply this or something equivalent, I will update the Guix package to point to your updated repo. Greetings, jannneke --=-=-= Content-Type: text/x-patch Content-Disposition: inline; filename=0001-test-Update-for-passing-bytes_new_null_size.scm.patch >From 810baa9427145d08b4c9ff46ee442e296eb1911b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jan Nieuwenhuizen Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2019 21:40:34 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] test: Update for passing bytes_new_null_size.scm. * test/Makefile.am (XFAIL_TESTS): Remove bytes_new_null_size. --- test/Makefile.am | 3 --- 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/test/Makefile.am b/test/Makefile.am index e647105..3cca48f 100644 --- a/test/Makefile.am +++ b/test/Makefile.am @@ -39,9 +39,6 @@ TESTS = \ gapplication_2.scm \ softerror_create.scm -XFAIL_TESTS = \ - bytes_new_null_size.scm - SCM_LOG_COMPILER = \ ${top_builddir}/libtool \ --dlopen=${top_builddir}/src/libguile-gi.la \ -- 2.21.0 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable --=20 Jan Nieuwenhuizen | GNU LilyPond http://lilypond.org Freelance IT http://JoyofSource.com | Avatar=C2=AE http://AvatarAcademy.com --=-=-=--