[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.c++

compiling a gtkmm program in windows

ArbolOne

10/25/2008 3:16:00 PM

I just downloaded gtkmm-win32-devel-2.14.1-3 and try to recompile an
application I had developed under gtkmm-win32-devel-2.10.11-1, but I
get a strange error:
--------------------

-------------- Build: default in Console application ---------------

Linking executable: TheProgram.exe
D:\XWin\bin\..\lib\gcc\mingw32\3.4.5\..\..\..\..\mingw32\bin\ld.exe:
cannot find -lfontconfig
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
Process terminated with status 1 (0 minutes, 0 seconds)
1 errors, 0 warnings
---------------------------

Specs
Windows XP
codeblocks-8.02-setup
MinGW-5.1.3
MSYS-1.0.11-2004.04.30-1

What am I doing wrong?
14 Answers

Obnoxious User

10/25/2008 3:22:00 PM

0

On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 08:15:40 -0700, ArbolOne wrote:

> I just downloaded gtkmm-win32-devel-2.14.1-3 and try to recompile an
> application I had developed under gtkmm-win32-devel-2.10.11-1, but I get
> a strange error:
> --------------------
>
> -------------- Build: default in Console application ---------------
>
> Linking executable: TheProgram.exe
> D:\XWin\bin\..\lib\gcc\mingw32\3.4.5\..\..\..\..\mingw32\bin\ld.exe:
> cannot find -lfontconfig

Most likely you're missing a dependency.

http://fontconfig...

--
OU
Remember 18th of June 2008, Democracy died that afternoon.
http://frapedia.se/wiki/Information_...

Just Kidding

11/11/2011 9:05:00 PM

0

On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 10:46:46 -0800 (PST), Seth Buttock
<caloch4@earthlink.net> wrote:

>On Nov 10, 11:34?pm, Andrew <amuraw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Yeah, he just told the guy who he would contact in any other situation
>> when he would have to have contact with the campus police. Went so far
>> as to arrange a meeting between McCreary (you know, the actual witness
>> here), Schultz and whoever the other guy under indictment is.
>
>
>Ok, so Joe Paterno walks into his office one day, and watches as one
>of his players shoots a janitor in the head. What should he do?
>
>He should give "the guy who he would contact in any other situation
>when he would have to have contact with the campus police" a call, and
>maybe even "arrange a meeting". Really.
>
>
>> > It's totally baffling that someone would go to such lengths to
>> > rationalize Paterno's failure to do the right thing. To the point of
>> > pretending that a school administrator who oversees a campus police
>> > force is the same as a police officer.
>>
>> Didn't mean to pretend anything, which is why I pointed out my
>> mistake. I've taken the crash course on this story in the last three
>> hours or so. I misread that detail earlier and corrected it above when
>> I became aware of my inaccurate statement.
>
>And when will you become aware of your incredibly bizarre and skewed
>perspective?
>
>> Nevertheless, this was never Paterno's mess. He had an employee who
>> claimed to witness one of PSU's other employees in a different
>> department molest a child. That employee of Paterno's came to him,
>> Paterno went to administrators including the overseer of the campus
>> police, arranged a meeting between that witness and those same
>> administrators, and it died on the vine. From Paterno's testimony to
>> the grand jury, he didn't know the extent of the potential crime, nor
>> did he know the details, which is why he put the guy who did (you
>> know, the witness) in contact with the right people.
>
>Is Joe Paterno a drooling imbecile with an IQ of 6? No? Well then, I
>think that when he heard that a grown man was in the football complex
>showers naked with a naked 10 year old boy, and they were "fooling
>around" "engaging in horseplay" "perhaps some fondling" or
>"something inappropriate" i think he probably knew very fucking well
>the "extent of the potential crime". Dude, the "potential" crime?
>
>WTF?
>
>> > He didn't tell the police and
>> > neither did anyone else. ?Period. ?They are all shit and they are all
>> > culpable, including Paterno at the TOP of the fucking list. ?Period.
>>
>> Question mark? Why is Paterno on the top of that list?
>
>Gosh, I don't know....because he was the most powerful person on
>campus for decades and he knew that an employee witnessed a former
>employee in the football complex showers naked with a naked 10 year
>old boy?

And despite having reported this incident to his "superiors", Paterno
never thought to wonder why Sandusky was still hanging around the
campus and using athletic department facilities for years after? He
never wondered whether any internal investigation had been done or
whether the incident had been reported to the police? And it never
crossed his mind to confront his longtime assistant coach and friend
of over 30 years to find out what his side of the story was?

sparksfly

11/11/2011 10:02:00 PM

0

On Nov 11, 1:46 pm, Seth Buttock <calo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Nov 10, 11:34 pm, Andrew <amuraw...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Gosh, I don't know....because he was the most powerful person on
> campus for decades and he knew that an employee witnessed a former
> employee in the football complex showers naked with a naked 10 year
> old boy?

What many people are missing is that 2002 wasn't the beginning of the
cover-up. That was when they doubled down on the cover-up. There were
allegation in '98 that Sandusky was up to something with a boy in the
showers. Paterno did one thing right and forced Sandusky (who was only
55) to retire. Sandusky for his part said he was retiring to spend
more time 'helping' children. But of course no one called the police.
And Paterno did one incredibly stupid thing, he allowed Sandusky to
have emeritus status, he had full privelages in the facilities AND,
even worse, allowed Sandusky to bring the boys around with him. So in
2002 when Paterno was told what McQueary had seen, he could not have
been all that surprised. He would have gotten fired then if the
police had gotten involved. So they doubled down on the cover-up.
And they allowed him to continue his crimes.

Anyone who thinks Joe doesn't deserve what he is getting needs to
reevaluate their life's priorities. Being a great football coach
really ain't that big of a deal. Being a good person is.

Mike

mr.rapidan

11/11/2011 10:24:00 PM

0

On Friday, November 11, 2011 5:01:33 PM UTC-5, sparksfly wrote:
> On Nov 11, 1:46 pm, Seth Buttock <cal...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 10, 11:34 pm, Andrew <amur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Gosh, I don't know....because he was the most powerful person on
> > campus for decades and he knew that an employee witnessed a former
> > employee in the football complex showers naked with a naked 10 year
> > old boy?
>
> What many people are missing is that 2002 wasn't the beginning of the
> cover-up. That was when they doubled down on the cover-up. There were
> allegation in '98 that Sandusky was up to something with a boy in the
> showers. Paterno did one thing right and forced Sandusky (who was only
> 55) to retire. Sandusky for his part said he was retiring to spend
> more time 'helping' children. But of course no one called the police.
> And Paterno did one incredibly stupid thing, he allowed Sandusky to
> have emeritus status, he had full privelages in the facilities AND,
> even worse, allowed Sandusky to bring the boys around with him. So in
> 2002 when Paterno was told what McQueary had seen, he could not have
> been all that surprised. He would have gotten fired then if the
> police had gotten involved. So they doubled down on the cover-up.
> And they allowed him to continue his crimes.
>
> Anyone who thinks Joe doesn't deserve what he is getting needs to
> reevaluate their life's priorities. Being a great football coach
> really ain't that big of a deal. Being a good person is.

Thanks for putting things this way.

Andrew

11/11/2011 10:43:00 PM

0

On Nov 11, 1:05 pm, Just Kidding <justkidd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 10:46:46 -0800 (PST), Seth Buttock
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <calo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >On Nov 10, 11:34 pm, Andrew <amuraw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Yeah, he just told the guy who he would contact in any other situation
> >> when he would have to have contact with the campus police. Went so far
> >> as to arrange a meeting between McCreary (you know, the actual witness
> >> here), Schultz and whoever the other guy under indictment is.
>
> >Ok, so Joe Paterno walks into his office one day, and watches as one
> >of his players shoots a janitor in the head.  What should he do?
>
> >He should give "the guy who he would contact in any other situation
> >when he would have to have contact with the campus police" a call, and
> >maybe even "arrange a meeting".  Really.
>
> >> > It's totally baffling that someone would go to such lengths to
> >> > rationalize Paterno's failure to do the right thing. To the point of
> >> > pretending that a school administrator who oversees a campus police
> >> > force is the same as a police officer.
>
> >> Didn't mean to pretend anything, which is why I pointed out my
> >> mistake. I've taken the crash course on this story in the last three
> >> hours or so. I misread that detail earlier and corrected it above when
> >> I became aware of my inaccurate statement.
>
> >And when will you become aware of your incredibly bizarre and skewed
> >perspective?
>
> >> Nevertheless, this was never Paterno's mess. He had an employee who
> >> claimed to witness one of PSU's other employees in a different
> >> department molest a child. That employee of Paterno's came to him,
> >> Paterno went to administrators including the overseer of the campus
> >> police, arranged a meeting between that witness and those same
> >> administrators, and it died on the vine. From Paterno's testimony to
> >> the grand jury, he didn't know the extent of the potential crime, nor
> >> did he know the details, which is why he put the guy who did (you
> >> know, the witness) in contact with the right people.
>
> >Is Joe Paterno a drooling imbecile with an IQ of 6?  No?  Well then, I
> >think that when he heard that a grown man was in the football complex
> >showers naked with a naked 10 year old boy, and they were "fooling
> >around"  "engaging in horseplay"  "perhaps some fondling" or
> >"something inappropriate"  i think he probably knew very fucking well
> >the "extent of the potential crime".  Dude, the "potential" crime?
>
> >WTF?
>
> >> > He didn't tell the police and
> >> > neither did anyone else.  Period.  They are all shit and they are all
> >> > culpable, including Paterno at the TOP of the fucking list.  Period.
>
> >> Question mark? Why is Paterno on the top of that list?
>
> >Gosh, I don't know....because he was the most powerful person on
> >campus for decades and he knew that an employee witnessed a former
> >employee in the football complex showers naked with a naked 10 year
> >old boy?
>
> And despite having reported this incident to his "superiors", Paterno
> never thought to wonder why Sandusky was still hanging around the
> campus and using athletic department facilities for years after? He
> never wondered whether any internal investigation had been done or
> whether the incident had been reported to the police? And it never
> crossed his mind to confront his longtime assistant coach and friend
> of over 30 years to find out what his side of the story was?

Maybe he thought that his superiors did their job and there was no
evidence to support the allegations.

frndthdevl@aol.com

11/11/2011 10:43:00 PM

0

On Nov 11, 2:01 pm, sparksfly <mrbir...@comcast.net> wrote:
There were
> allegation in '98 that Sandusky was up to something with a boy in the
> showers.

The District Attorney, Ray Gricar,refused to bring charges against
Sandusky in 1998. Gricar went missing in 2005. His hard drive tossed
into the Susquehanna River too damaged to recover. His body was never
found after his car with cell phone was found in Lewisburg. I am sure
a movie is being written as this sad story continues to play out. One
thing that pised me off with the coverage has been a few college
football heads crying about the players being punished for what they
did not do. WTF? How does any NCAA sanction on programs not punish
innocent players? Yet these kids who had a coach who seemingly has
ignored horrors are victims because Paterno can't coach on Saturday?

Andrew

11/11/2011 10:46:00 PM

0

On Nov 11, 2:01 pm, sparksfly <mrbir...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Nov 11, 1:46 pm, Seth Buttock <calo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 10, 11:34 pm, Andrew <amuraw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Gosh, I don't know....because he was the most powerful person on
> > campus for decades and he knew that an employee witnessed a former
> > employee in the football complex showers naked with a naked 10 year
> > old boy?
>
> What many people are missing is that 2002 wasn't the beginning of the
> cover-up. That was when they doubled down on the cover-up. There were
> allegation in '98 that Sandusky was up to something with a boy in the
> showers. Paterno did one thing right and forced Sandusky (who was only
> 55) to retire.  Sandusky for his part said he was retiring to spend
> more time 'helping' children. But of course no one called the police.

That's just wrong right there. The '98 allegations were investigated
by campus police and local law enforcement.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/10/sports/ncaafootball/aftermath-of-1998-sandusky-investigation-raises-additional-ques...

Neil X

11/12/2011 3:54:00 AM

0

On Nov 11, 5:42 pm, Andrew <amuraw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 11, 1:05 pm, Just Kidding <justkidd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 10:46:46 -0800 (PST), Seth Buttock
>
> > <calo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > >On Nov 10, 11:34 pm, Andrew <amuraw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> Yeah, he just told the guy who he would contact in any other situation
> > >> when he would have to have contact with the campus police. Went so far
> > >> as to arrange a meeting between McCreary (you know, the actual witness
> > >> here), Schultz and whoever the other guy under indictment is.
>
> > >Ok, so Joe Paterno walks into his office one day, and watches as one
> > >of his players shoots a janitor in the head.  What should he do?
>
> > >He should give "the guy who he would contact in any other situation
> > >when he would have to have contact with the campus police" a call, and
> > >maybe even "arrange a meeting".  Really.
>
> > >> > It's totally baffling that someone would go to such lengths to
> > >> > rationalize Paterno's failure to do the right thing. To the point of
> > >> > pretending that a school administrator who oversees a campus police
> > >> > force is the same as a police officer.
>
> > >> Didn't mean to pretend anything, which is why I pointed out my
> > >> mistake. I've taken the crash course on this story in the last three
> > >> hours or so. I misread that detail earlier and corrected it above when
> > >> I became aware of my inaccurate statement.
>
> > >And when will you become aware of your incredibly bizarre and skewed
> > >perspective?
>
> > >> Nevertheless, this was never Paterno's mess. He had an employee who
> > >> claimed to witness one of PSU's other employees in a different
> > >> department molest a child. That employee of Paterno's came to him,
> > >> Paterno went to administrators including the overseer of the campus
> > >> police, arranged a meeting between that witness and those same
> > >> administrators, and it died on the vine. From Paterno's testimony to
> > >> the grand jury, he didn't know the extent of the potential crime, nor
> > >> did he know the details, which is why he put the guy who did (you
> > >> know, the witness) in contact with the right people.
>
> > >Is Joe Paterno a drooling imbecile with an IQ of 6?  No?  Well then, I
> > >think that when he heard that a grown man was in the football complex
> > >showers naked with a naked 10 year old boy, and they were "fooling
> > >around"  "engaging in horseplay"  "perhaps some fondling" or
> > >"something inappropriate"  i think he probably knew very fucking well
> > >the "extent of the potential crime".  Dude, the "potential" crime?
>
> > >WTF?
>
> > >> > He didn't tell the police and
> > >> > neither did anyone else.  Period.  They are all shit and they are all
> > >> > culpable, including Paterno at the TOP of the fucking list.  Period.
>
> > >> Question mark? Why is Paterno on the top of that list?
>
> > >Gosh, I don't know....because he was the most powerful person on
> > >campus for decades and he knew that an employee witnessed a former
> > >employee in the football complex showers naked with a naked 10 year
> > >old boy?
>
> > And despite having reported this incident to his "superiors", Paterno
> > never thought to wonder why Sandusky was still hanging around the
> > campus and using athletic department facilities for years after? He
> > never wondered whether any internal investigation had been done or
> > whether the incident had been reported to the police? And it never
> > crossed his mind to confront his longtime assistant coach and friend
> > of over 30 years to find out what his side of the story was?
>
> Maybe he thought that his superiors did their job and there was no
> evidence to support the allegations.


Right, so no need to look into it at all, again, ever. No need to
follow up and ask any questions of anyone. No need to make any
inquiries as to the result the "investigation." Just assume
everything is completely hunky dory. Yeah, that's what a leader
does. Absolutely.

Peace,
Neil x.

Neil X

11/12/2011 4:06:00 AM

0

On Nov 11, 5:40 pm, Andrew <amuraw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 11, 10:46 am, Seth Buttock <calo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 10, 11:34 pm, Andrew <amuraw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Yeah, he just told the guy who he would contact in any other situation
> > > when he would have to have contact with the campus police. Went so far
> > > as to arrange a meeting between McCreary (you know, the actual witness
> > > here), Schultz and whoever the other guy under indictment is.
>
> > Ok, so Joe Paterno walks into his office one day, and watches as one
> > of his players shoots a janitor in the head.  What should he do?
>
> Really? That's the comparison you're making?


A significant percentage of the population is more appalled by child
rape than murder, but still, I think the comparison has some validity.

Peace,
Neil X.

Just Kidding

11/12/2011 4:36:00 AM

0

On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 19:54:01 -0800 (PST), Neil X <neilxk@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Nov 11, 5:42?pm, Andrew <amuraw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 11, 1:05?pm, Just Kidding <justkidd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 10:46:46 -0800 (PST), Seth Buttock
>>
>> > <calo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> > >On Nov 10, 11:34?pm, Andrew <amuraw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> Yeah, he just told the guy who he would contact in any other situation
>> > >> when he would have to have contact with the campus police. Went so far
>> > >> as to arrange a meeting between McCreary (you know, the actual witness
>> > >> here), Schultz and whoever the other guy under indictment is.
>>
>> > >Ok, so Joe Paterno walks into his office one day, and watches as one
>> > >of his players shoots a janitor in the head. ?What should he do?
>>
>> > >He should give "the guy who he would contact in any other situation
>> > >when he would have to have contact with the campus police" a call, and
>> > >maybe even "arrange a meeting". ?Really.
>>
>> > >> > It's totally baffling that someone would go to such lengths to
>> > >> > rationalize Paterno's failure to do the right thing. To the point of
>> > >> > pretending that a school administrator who oversees a campus police
>> > >> > force is the same as a police officer.
>>
>> > >> Didn't mean to pretend anything, which is why I pointed out my
>> > >> mistake. I've taken the crash course on this story in the last three
>> > >> hours or so. I misread that detail earlier and corrected it above when
>> > >> I became aware of my inaccurate statement.
>>
>> > >And when will you become aware of your incredibly bizarre and skewed
>> > >perspective?
>>
>> > >> Nevertheless, this was never Paterno's mess. He had an employee who
>> > >> claimed to witness one of PSU's other employees in a different
>> > >> department molest a child. That employee of Paterno's came to him,
>> > >> Paterno went to administrators including the overseer of the campus
>> > >> police, arranged a meeting between that witness and those same
>> > >> administrators, and it died on the vine. From Paterno's testimony to
>> > >> the grand jury, he didn't know the extent of the potential crime, nor
>> > >> did he know the details, which is why he put the guy who did (you
>> > >> know, the witness) in contact with the right people.
>>
>> > >Is Joe Paterno a drooling imbecile with an IQ of 6? ?No? ?Well then, I
>> > >think that when he heard that a grown man was in the football complex
>> > >showers naked with a naked 10 year old boy, and they were "fooling
>> > >around" ?"engaging in horseplay" ?"perhaps some fondling" or
>> > >"something inappropriate" ?i think he probably knew very fucking well
>> > >the "extent of the potential crime". ?Dude, the "potential" crime?
>>
>> > >WTF?
>>
>> > >> > He didn't tell the police and
>> > >> > neither did anyone else. ?Period. ?They are all shit and they are all
>> > >> > culpable, including Paterno at the TOP of the fucking list. ?Period.
>>
>> > >> Question mark? Why is Paterno on the top of that list?
>>
>> > >Gosh, I don't know....because he was the most powerful person on
>> > >campus for decades and he knew that an employee witnessed a former
>> > >employee in the football complex showers naked with a naked 10 year
>> > >old boy?
>>
>> > And despite having reported this incident to his "superiors", Paterno
>> > never thought to wonder why Sandusky was still hanging around the
>> > campus and using athletic department facilities for years after? He
>> > never wondered whether any internal investigation had been done or
>> > whether the incident had been reported to the police? And it never
>> > crossed his mind to confront his longtime assistant coach and friend
>> > of over 30 years to find out what his side of the story was?
>>
>> Maybe he thought that his superiors did their job and there was no
>> evidence to support the allegations.
>
>
>Right, so no need to look into it at all, again, ever. No need to
>follow up and ask any questions of anyone. No need to make any
>inquiries as to the result the "investigation." Just assume
>everything is completely hunky dory. Yeah, that's what a leader
>does. Absolutely.
>
>Peace,
>Neil x.

Hey, no news is good news, right?