Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 860031
headers use G_GNUC_DEPRECATED_FOR which is glib >= 2.26 only
Last modified: 2012-10-15 16:45:42 EDT
Description of problem:
I am attempting to rebuild virt-viewer 0.5.2 against spice-gtk 0.14-1.el6 in order to address bug 854318. Unfortunately the spice-gtk 0.14 header files appear to use the G_GNUC_DEPRECATED_FOR() macros, which is only available in glib >= 2.26. RHEL-6 onl has version 2.22, leading to fail
In file included from /usr/include/spice-client-glib-2.0/spice-client.h:35,
/usr/include/spice-client-glib-2.0/channel-main.h:84: warning: return type defaults to 'int'
/usr/include/spice-client-glib-2.0/channel-main.h:83: warning: no previous prototype for 'G_GNUC_DEPRECATED_FOR'
/usr/include/spice-client-glib-2.0/channel-main.h: In function 'G_GNUC_DEPRECATED_FOR':
/usr/include/spice-client-glib-2.0/channel-main.h:85: error: expected declaration specifiers before 'G_GNUC_DEPRECATED_FOR'
/usr/include/spice-client-glib-2.0/channel-main.h:87: error: expected declaration specifiers before 'G_GNUC_DEPRECATED_FOR'
/usr/include/spice-client-glib-2.0/channel-main.h:89: error: expected declaration specifiers before 'G_GNUC_DEPRECATED_FOR'
The spice-gtk package has back compatibility support for this via its glib-compat.h header file, but this is broken, because the compat file is being used by the .c files, instead of by the .h files. Thus although spice-gtk itself builds fine, all apps using spice-gtk are fubar.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
Steps to Reproduce:
1. Attempt to build any app using spice-gtk
Oops, we forgot to commit http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/spice-devel/2012-September/010788.html
I'll readd it to spice-gtk tomorrow.
I've pushed a -2 build with this fixed. I've associated the fixes with spice-gtk rebase bug as this is a build regression introduced by the rebase.
This one was addressed as part of the spice-gtk rebase bug (bug #842354) as the regression was caused by the rebase, I forgot there was this more specific bug. I'm marking it as a duplicate even though it would have been nicer to keep track of this with this bug.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 842354 ***