> Thanks for this. I think I have the stuff and I think I have poked it in > the right places, but so far no joy. The gdk-pixbuf.loaders file in the > directory below c:/program files/Denemo seems to be ignored.
Ah. I forgot to mention that when installing a new gdk-pixbuf loader, you indeed need to either 1) run the gdk-pixbuf-query-loaders program and redirect its output to the corresponding gdk-pixbuf.loaders file (thus refreshing the list of loaders GTK+ knows about), or 2) edit the gdk-pixbuf.loaders file manually to add an entry for the new loader. (If there was an installer for the new loader, the installer should take care of this.) > But I can hide it in the Denemo tree and I get no complaint. I > am not sure that Denemo needs other pixbuf loaders I don't know what Denemo is, but the explanation might be that if the executable you are running is not a console executable, you won't see any warning it tries to print to stderr. Run it from a command prompt and redirect stderr to a file, or to a pipe to more, for instance... > (are the standard gtk icons loaded with one?). The standard icons are built-in in the libgtk DLL binary, yes. > In any case the contents of the > gdk-pixbuf.loaders file looks suspicious, entries like > > "c:/devel/target/gtk+-2.8.9/lib/gtk-2.0/2.4.0/loaders/libpixbufloader-xpm.dll" > > /devel is not (never has been) a path on my windows partition. The paths in the gdk-pixbuf.loaders file don't need to be real existing paths for those cases where they point to loaders included with that particular build of GTK+. See http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=462433#c5 for instance for an often repeated explanation. In this case, the GTK+ 2.8.9 binaries were built with a compile-time prefix of c:/devel/target/gtk+-2.8.9, and paths in the gdk-pixbuf.loaders file that start with that work even when GTK+ then is actually installed anywhere on the end-user machine. But GTK+ 2.8.9 was ages ago (umm, December 2005 it seems). The svg loader I pointed you to most probably won't work with such an old GTK+ anyway. > Finally, (if I am not trying your patience too far) do I need to be > worrying about 2.4.0 versus 2.10.0, or will it be happy at runtime with > anything it finds below gtk-2.0? Hard to say. You might be lucky and it works. > I ask because all the earlier pixbuf > loaders had a different naming convention (libpixbufloader-gif.dll while > the svg one was just svg_loader.dll), That naming difference is mostly coincidental (an artefact of differences in how the Makefile.am files in question were written) and not a problem as such. --tml _______________________________________________ gtk-app-devel-list mailing list gtk-app-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-app-devel-list
