Ubuntu
libglade2 package

remove default settings from glade files while building deb files.

Bug #43369 reported by j^ on 2006-05-07

Affects		Status	Importance	Assigned to	Milestone
	libglade2 (Ubuntu)	Confirmed	Wishlist	Unassigned

Bug Description

not sure what the right package is to file this bug,
so i will file it against libglade for now.

right now most packages that install .glade files
set default properties in the glade file instead of
falling back to gtk defaults. with invisible_char
this poses the problem now that those pacakges that have
<property name="invisible_char">*</property>
in there glade file use * instead of gtks default character.

this might be fixed in a future version of glade-2 but is not right now.

to solve this problem for dapper one could add a script to
dh_install or whatever the right place for such things would be
that would remove the default setting, this could be done with a line like this:
find -name \*.glade -exec sed -i "s/<property name=\"invisible_char\".*>\*<\/property>//g" \{\} \;

Revision history for this message

Adam Conrad (adconrad) wrote on 2006-05-07:

This sort of thing definitely does NOT belong in dh_install, as suggested in the bug. debhelper's not there to fix random bugs in source code.

Revision history for this message

j^ (j) wrote on 2006-05-07: this patch ignores * in glade files and sticks to the system default.

this patch ignores * in glade files and sticks to the system default. Edit (544 bytes, text/plain)

with attached patch the problem is solved in libglade
rather than changing all those .glade files.
this was suggested as a better way on #ubuntu-devel

Revision history for this message

Alexander Jones (alex-weej) wrote on 2007-09-22:

Can we get this in for Gutsy? This problem is still at large...

Revision history for this message

Alexander Jones (alex-weej) wrote on 2007-09-22:

Oh actually one thing that is a problem is that some glade files have U+2022 hardcoded as the default. I believe this was the Red Hat default for some time.

The only thing I can think of to do here is to just ignore it unless it is 0 (invisible). This might affect a few obscure applications, but I don't think we can make any better of a bad mess.

Daniel T Chen (crimsun) on 2008-09-11