Loïc Minier wrote:
On Sun, Sep 24, 2006, Attilio Fiandrotti wrote:
Meanwhile, if you want to see if you can reproduce the "BOOM" bug in GTK
from CVS, you can proceed as follows (you'll need a ssh terminal).
-Run gtk-demo and open the hypertext app
-Attach gdb to the process and set a breakpoin
On Sun, Sep 24, 2006, Attilio Fiandrotti wrote:
> Meanwhile, if you want to see if you can reproduce the "BOOM" bug in GTK
> from CVS, you can proceed as follows (you'll need a ssh terminal).
> -Run gtk-demo and open the hypertext app
> -Attach gdb to the process and set a breakpoint at
> gtk_tar
Great! did you also manage to reproduce the crash that makes the g-i
hang on button click?
Loïc Minier wrote:
Hi,
Based on your messages, I included the fixes you mention plus some
missing files as well, and was able to build Gtk 2.10.4 / DirectFB.
I've uploaded the result to experi
Hi,
Based on your messages, I included the fixes you mention plus some
missing files as well, and was able to build Gtk 2.10.4 / DirectFB.
I've uploaded the result to experimental.
On Sat, Sep 23, 2006, Attilio Fiandrotti wrote:
> First, the bad news: GTK 2.10.4 has a broken DFB backen
Loïc Minier wrote:
On Sat, Sep 23, 2006, Attilio Fiandrotti wrote:
First, the bad news: GTK 2.10.4 has a broken DFB backend, as an old
bugfix [1] by Mike Emmel icluded in CVS was not relesed, so to get a
working GTKDFB library you'll have to use sources form CVS HEAD.
The link you're givin
On Sat, Sep 23, 2006, Attilio Fiandrotti wrote:
> First, the bad news: GTK 2.10.4 has a broken DFB backend, as an old
> bugfix [1] by Mike Emmel icluded in CVS was not relesed, so to get a
> working GTKDFB library you'll have to use sources form CVS HEAD.
The link you're giving seems like the s
Loïc Minier wrote:
On Sat, Sep 23, 2006, Attilio Fiandrotti wrote:
I never filed a bug into GNOME's bugzilla because no one ever was able
to reproduce this bug, but if someone can manage to achieve this (Loic?
:) we could file a proper bugreport to have ot fixed in next GTK release.
I woul
On Saturday 23 September 2006 19:22, Loïc Minier wrote:
> What would be the best way to have debug symbols? libgtk2.0-0-dbg has
> the debug symbols of both flavors of Gtk, for example it has:
> /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib/libgdk-directfb-2.0.so.0.1000.3
> /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib/libgtk-directf
On Sat, Sep 23, 2006, Attilio Fiandrotti wrote:
> if we could build a 2.10.x ISO with debugging symbols for GTK+, and
> processes run within vmware could be debugged remotlely using gdb (like
> qemu allows to do), this could be a a good proof for the bug.
> Meanwhile, let's see if can reproduced
On Sat, Sep 23, 2006, Attilio Fiandrotti wrote:
> I never filed a bug into GNOME's bugzilla because no one ever was able
> to reproduce this bug, but if someone can manage to achieve this (Loic?
> :) we could file a proper bugreport to have ot fixed in next GTK release.
I would be happy to be a
Frans Pop wrote:
On Saturday 23 September 2006 12:54, Attilio Fiandrotti wrote:
I never filed a bug into GNOME's bugzilla because no one ever was able
to reproduce this bug, but if someone can manage to achieve this (Loic?
Well, I see it completely reliably with the image I built for 2.10 in
On Saturday 23 September 2006 12:54, Attilio Fiandrotti wrote:
> I never filed a bug into GNOME's bugzilla because no one ever was able
> to reproduce this bug, but if someone can manage to achieve this (Loic?
Well, I see it completely reliably with the image I built for 2.10 in
vmware. Possibly
Frans Pop wrote:
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 11:00, Loïc Minier wrote:
Gtk 2.10.1-1 was uploaded yesterday to experimental (and 2.10.3-1
after dinstall). This new upstream release is not compatible with
modules built with prior Gtk versions. Some longstanding issues have
been addressed in
Frans Pop wrote:
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 11:00, Loïc Minier wrote:
Gtk 2.10.1-1 was uploaded yesterday to experimental (and 2.10.3-1
after dinstall). This new upstream release is not compatible with
modules built with prior Gtk versions. Some longstanding issues have
been addressed in
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 11:00, Loïc Minier wrote:
> Gtk 2.10.1-1 was uploaded yesterday to experimental (and 2.10.3-1
> after dinstall). This new upstream release is not compatible with
> modules built with prior Gtk versions. Some longstanding issues have
> been addressed in this relea
Frans Pop wrote:
Main reason I ask is that there are a few RC issues in the graphical
installer (not crashes, but important presentation issues) that should be
solved in 2.10, but are still present in 2.8.
If the chance that 2.10 will _not_ make Etch is high, then we need to try
to find fixes
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006, Frans Pop wrote:
> The main question I guess is: is there more information on if/when 2.10
> could migrate to unstable? What is the chance that it will make Etch?
The biggest instability in Gtk 2.10 is due to the new filesystem module
asynchronous implementation. In short
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 11:00, Loïc Minier wrote:
> Gtk 2.10.1-1 was uploaded yesterday to experimental (and 2.10.3-1
> after dinstall). This new upstream release is not compatible with
> modules built with prior Gtk versions. Some longstanding issues have
> been addressed in this release
Hi,
Gtk 2.10.1-1 was uploaded yesterday to experimental (and 2.10.3-1 after
dinstall). This new upstream release is not compatible with
modules built with prior Gtk versions. Some longstanding issues have
been addressed in this release as well.
Here's a quick summary of the import
19 matches
Mail list logo
