XFce 4.2.3.2 support for SunStudio under Solaris

[Brian J. Tarricone]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 5/22/2006 12:55 PM, Ori Bernstein wrote:
> On Sun, 21 May 2006 21:08:06 -0700, "Brian J. Tarricone" <bjt23 at cornell.edu>
> said:
>>
>> Auke Kok wrote:
>>
>>> I doubt these should be merged as such:
>>>
>>> * removing the panel locks will cause breakage. it's probably better to fix
>>> the XFCE_PANEL_(LOCK|UNLOCK) routines to compile on __sun, and then it will
>>> also compile properly when people add new _LOCK and _UNLOCK calls.
>> Not really.  The panel locks haven't been used in... over a year maybe?
>>   And they were only there for a little while during the development
>> cycle, so there shouldn't even be any released version of Xfce that
>> has/uses them.  They should be safe to remove from the xfce4-mixer
>> plugin entirely.  Assuming xfce4-mixer is an external plugin now (which
>> it should be), they're irrelevant anyway.
> 
> William seems to be porting Xfce 4.2, not 4.4. As far I know, the locks in the
> panel were removed in 4.4, but they were still in use in 4.2.

No, they weren't.  I said they were only in an unreleased development
version.  I just checked to be sure, and I'm partially right: they were
removed right after 4.2beta1 (4.1.90), so they were removed before 4.2.0
was released (so it's actually been about 18-19 months).  If anyone's
still using a beta version of 4.2, they should expect problems.  The
locks are useless for all stable releases of 4.0 and 4.2, as well as 4.4.

At any rate, the mixer plugin itself is presumably targetting the
latest-and-greatest Xfce release, so the panel locks can be safely
removed.  And should be removed, if they're causing issues with some
compilers.

	-brian

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFEcg9u6XyW6VEeAnsRApz+AJ0e3K4rjfVlQA++4yvfSzyVrHekzQCcDs48
smSuxa7D5SLh7TXjqUt7jKA=
=REhk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----