On 2015-03-16 14:49, David Henningsson wrote: > > > On 2015-03-13 14:28, Peter Mattern wrote: >> Hello. >> >> The number of commits since last pavucontrol release isn't that high but >> they do comprehend quite a lot of rather important bug fixes, imo. >> >> A probably related finding is that compiling 2.0 code on recent systems >> seems to have issues. >> E. g. on up-to-date Arch Linux x86_64 compiling the usual way seems to >> work flawlessly but yields a binary segfaulting right upon start >> (systemd journal: 'kernel: traps: pavucontrol[4102] general protection >> ip:7f34c9809f3f sp:7fffd8d80820 error:0 in libgobject-2.0.so.0.4200.2'). >> Problem can't be seen with Git code. >> >> So all in all I'm wondering whether a minor or point release of >> pavucontrol wouldn't make sense. > > Indeed it would. I was actually about to do so, but then this flu thing > went viral. I'm working on rebuilding myself into a less buggy state > again before sneezing out an rc. Hrm, this pavucontrol application seems a bit difficult to test (and I do want to test it before I release it...) How do you others do it? First, if I try an out-of-tree build, it fails updating some README file. Second, if I don't, it does compile, but running from build directory fails with Gtk::Builder::add_from_file throwing a Glib::FileError. Any tricks I'm missing here? -- David Henningsson, Canonical Ltd. https://launchpad.net/~diwic
